On the Persistence of Craft

Tarkko Oksala & Tufan Orel

Despite its Ramifications as Technology, Fine Arts and Design

Past times: are we reactionists, then, anchored in the dead past? Indeed I should hope not; nor can I altogether tell you how much of the past is really dead. I see about me now evidence of ideas recurring which have long been superseded.

– William Morris, The Arts and Crafts of To-day, 1889

Introduction

This paper proposes to highlight some of the most crucial historical moments in the continuity and the persistence of craft culture. After its ramification as technology and fine arts in the 18th century and as design in the mid-twentieth century, craft loses its importance, not only in the modes of production, but also in the relations that we have with objects of everyday life. Yet some robust signs indicate that craft is still vivid today in production as well as in our daily lives. It has managed to continue to exist by other paths, as will be explained in this paper.

This paper has a theoretical frame which is followed by a case study: it is especially consecrated to Finnish culture and experience. — The theoretical approach itself is divided into two parts. In the first part we will pinpoint some important dates of craft culture since its origin in Ancient Greece until the 18th century. Afterwards we try to show how Technology, fine arts and design have obtained their autonomy by gradually distancing themselves from the craft. The second part is on the three major figures by which we can detect the persistence of craft culture today: hidden craft, ambient craft and manifest craft.

The aim of the case study is to test the theoretical frame presented earlier in which know-how in craft is divided into hidden, ambient and manifest forms. As a case we consider here the development of craft culture since 1900 in Finnish architecture and design in general. Detailed historical remarks are made in the first half of 20th century. The second half is discussed concerning general trends mainly having some relevance up to the global problems of today.

Art Nouveau came into Finland in the end of 19th century. The Finnish Pavilion in the Paris World Fair 1900 was the most famous sign of that. Many important works after that represented National Romanticism but continental inspirations became on agenda very soon. Arts and Crafts movement fitted very well with both competing style directions. The position of craft in design changed dramatically when modernism and the new wave of industrialization took command. Finland got very good start in functionalism and Finnish Design become a trademark besides Scandinavian style. Postmodern trends challenged markets since the sixties also in Finland both in practice and in design study or discourse.

Hidden or tacit craft knowledge had its roots in the long design tradition of Finland and even education was practice oriented until the fifties. Many successful organizations around industrial design were established. In this phase craft had its ambient position. In the sixties systematic design fitted with industrial action and changed the situation dramatically. The division between arts and crafts and industrial design was sharpened in design politics. Today design knowledge is opened and expressed in programs and manifest form, having some important historical predecessors. I

According to a standard definition, “Craft (what ars means in ancient Latin and what tekhne means in Greek) is the power to produce a preconceived result by means of consciously controlled and directed action” (Collingwood, 1938, 15). We particularly take note of the idea of power in this definition. Considering craft as power certainly illustrates one of its most important features. But it is possible to enlarge this definition with the term craft culture. This consists of conceiving craft not only as a process of production — where power comes into play — but also as the result of this process: the oeuvres or the craftworks. What is more, we can also include the users of these craftworks when we talk generally about craft culture.

Instead of just giving a formal definition of craft and craft culture we should look into the different significations that were given to craft and the various debates that it has aroused since its origin in Ancient Greece until the 18th century. Moreover, we propose to show in this first part of our paper how craft and the craft culture have disappeared in the 18th century by gradually leaving its place to technology, fine arts and design. The persistence of craft in our time will be discussed in the second part of the paper.

Herodotus (5th century BCE) is one of the first to mention the importance of craft from a historical perspective. By mixing some elements of mythology with historiography, he considers that craft is a domain of technical competences (tekhnai) which is as important as the domain of honors (timas) obtained by heroic acts. More specifically he states: “Hesiod and Homer I suppose were four hundred years before my time and not more,

and these are they who made a theogony for the Hellenes and gave the titles to the gods and distributed to them honors and arts.” (Historía, Book 2: Euterpe § 53)

Later on, the Sophists accentuated the cognitive aspect of craft (tekhne), but they extended its domain of application from the physical world to the social world. According to Protagoras, in the human world, tekhne was necessary for vital needs. But its apprenticeship was not required to all, “that is why the arts were distributed in a such a way that one man, an expert in the art of medicine, is sufficient for many laymen”, but the “cities cannot be formed if only a few have shared a (social) tekhne”. (Plato, Protagoras, 322, c; for a more general view on the relation of Plato with the sophists see Guthrie, 1971, 265 and sq.)

In the 4th (BCE) century Plato does not show a special interest towards craft knowledge (tekhne), privileging instead the rational knowledge: episteme. But according to the Finnish philosopher and logician Hintikka, Plato sometimes considers episteme and tekhne as synonyms. (Hintikka, 1974, 31–40) For Plato craft means the action of fabrication (plattô) (Brisson, 1994, 51). However, he will consider this activity as a subaltern occupation because in his profession, the artisan is not aware that the models he uses to fabricate objects are in reality models (idea) of the transcendental world. As for artistic creations such as the statues of Phidias, they are just imitations (mimesis) of nature and they do not represent the real idea of beauty. Plato applies the criterion of beauty to the ethical sphere (conducts and persons) where he relates kalon (good) to kallos (beauty). Furthermore, he distinguishes poíesis from the action of making, plattô, by saying : “only that portion of the art (craft) which is separated off from the rest, and is concerned with music and meter, is termed poetry (poíesis)” (Symposium- 205c). Yet this does not fundamentally change his position on the matter. The word poíesis in its literal sense means giving birth or creation and Plato also makes an ontological claim through this word: “Everything which passes from non-being to being is poíesis.” But this formula is also not associated with any aesthetic considerations. We have to wait for the artistes of the Romantic period for aesthetic values to be assigned to creation (poíesis).

This speculative idea of beauty applied to the ethical sphere, kept its importance during many centuries (Tatarkiewicz, 1972), including the Hellenistic-Roman period (McMahon, 2009). It gets dethroned, however, by the emergence of the sensual considerations of beauty, notably applied to physical objects. Such considerations will be promoted by the English empiricists and will play a major role for the birth of the beaux-arts or the fine arts in the 18th century.

Aristotle gives more importance than Plato to craft activities. In his theory of the “Three ways of living (bios)”, he considers craft activity (poíesis) as

important as bios theorètikos, and bios praktikos, (Nic. Eth. 1095b). The main purpose of poíesis is the production of material objects and the result of this production is a poiema (what is made). But in his book called The Poetics, poiesis will have a new signification: it will be related to artistic production (Peri poietikès) and will mainly deal with drama: more precisely, the representation of human action (mimèsis praxeôs), or “what is done” on stage. This doing, or making (poïeîn), on stage is rendered either by the word dran (which is a Dorian word and from which—most probably—comes the word drama), or by the word prattein—used by the Athenians (The Poetics, 48 a30). Also, like his mentor Plato, Aristotle did not confer any aesthetic criteria, in the modern sense, to ‘poetic activities’. According to him, the criteria of beauty, such as order and symmetry, do not belong to art but to mathematics (Metaphysics, 1078b). Nevertheless, he uses incidentally the word beauty in The Poetics when he considers that the range or the extent of a plot (muthos) should not be too long or too short. This idea of magnitude (megetos) which Aristotle seems to attribute to beauty is still not related to our modern understanding of aesthetics, but to his legendary idea of the “golden mean”: an idea that he also used for the scope of a city: a city must not be too big or too small. In his Metaphysics, Aristotle promises to reveal more about what he considers to be beauty, however, his promise is never realized.

Beside its importance for Art Theory, the Poetics of Aristotle also has an important role in elucidating the complex idea of craft. On the one hand, craft is a knowledge (tekhne) but on the other hand, craft is the power to produce material or artistic objects: it is a poietike. According to Aristotle, to consider that craft exclusively uses tekhne can be misleading, because craft productions can sometimes be based on habit (Poetics, 47 a 20) or on inspiration. It is only in specific cases that craft can use a sophisticated expert knowledge which is tekhne. As for the idea of power, craft is related to active power poietike (see also Metaph, 12 1019a 15) and not to potential power. In one sense, it is possible to consider the emergence of design in the modern times as relative to the importance given to the potential power. In other words, before the embodiment of a product (active power) there exists both conceptual phases (planning, designing) and representational phases (schematizations, blueprints, etc). It is these preembodiment phases that we can place in the category of potential power. We can also note that for Aristotle, the potential power to build a house is in the mind of the architect, but Aristotle of course ignores today’s design processes. All the complexity of the contemporary virtual stages of design (conceptualization, planning, schematizations etc.) could not have been considered by him. [See also some interesting remarks of Hintikka (1974, 41–43) on “The Paradigm of Craft” related to Aristotle and Plato.]

This complex idea of craft encountered in The Poetics of Aristotle can be illustrated with the help of the following figure:

Knowledge CRAFT

Power (dynamis)

With expert knowledge TEKHNE Without expert knowledge: With habit or inspiration Potential power Active power POIETIKE

Figure 1.

Some modern philosophers like John Dewey have remarked that Aristotle’s affinity with craft is not limited to his Poetics. Dewey considers that we can also find some reflections on craftsmen in the very foundation of Aristotle’s metaphysic of “four causes”:

• What to produce? (formal cause), • For whom and for what purpose? (final cause), • How will the production be done? (efficient cause), • What should the product be made of? (material cause).

Dewey (1958, 92) makes this point of view particularly explicit when he says: “The Aristotelian conception of four-fold ‘causation’ is openly borrowed from the Arts”.

Moreover, concerning the formal cause, Aristotle does not attribute any affinity between the formal cause and aesthetic preoccupations. It is only much later that the formal cause is related to aesthetic values by the peripatetic philosopher, Al-Farabi (10th century). For example, when speaking of a glass he specifies that, although the shape of a glass is printed in its material substrate, the fact that the glass is transparent is “to bring out the beauty of its content” (Kitab Ihsa’ al-’ulûm).

Another crucial moment in the evolution of the idea of craft is the separation of professions into the categories of liberal arts and mechanical arts. Within this classification, Craft finds itself in the category of mechanical arts (Artes mechanicae). In the 2nd century CE, the philosopher and physician Galen was one of the first to propose this distinction. In his own words, “The professions are divided into two categories. The first comprises those in the domain of intelligence, called the honorable or the liberal arts; the second, those demanding manual labor, called the illiberal or mechanical arts”. (Galen, 1930, 529)

Subsequently, the old Greek formula of craft (Craft = tekhne + poietike) will start to become gradually replaced by the common Latin word ars.

In the 6th century, Boethius considers liberal arts as constitutive of four disciplines (quadrivium): music, arithmetic, geometry and astronomy. In the 9th century, three other disciplines (trivium) are added: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. It is interesting to remark that music at the time was still considered as a theoretical discipline, as a liberal art, and not related to creation or composition. This tendency will mainly be reversed after Monteverdi. As for the mechanical arts, during the same century Johannes Scotus Eriugena divides it into different practices: tailoring, weaving, agriculture, architecture, masonry, military arts, trade, cooking and metallurgy.

The artes mechanicae of the Middle Ages is still exercised with an artisanal spirit, although some craftsmen, such as Villard de Honnecourt, will go beyond this tradition by developing sophisticated techniques of drawings for architectural designs (plans, elevations and detailed descriptions), such as figures in his famous Sketchbook. However, for the modern drawing techniques of architects and engineers to emerge, we must wait for Gaspard Monge to invent descriptive geometry in the late 18th century (see Finch, 1960, 86–89 and Orel, 1993, 121–150).

After its transformation into mechanical arts, another crucial epoch for craft tradition is the Renaissance period.

From the point of view of modes of production, the major transformation of that period is the passage from the closed system of guilds to a more or less open system of corporations. This concerns for example, groups of sculptors and painters who came together in workshops around a wellknown master, like the Verrocchio’s workshop in which Leonardo participated. Now the main aim of Artists (or proto-artists) like Leonardo is to liberate themselves from the status of workers of the mechanical arts. The best term to be used for this new status of these artists-craftsmen is virtuoso or as Vasari (1550) mentions: mannerly virtuose craftsman, costumato e virtuoso artefice.

Another important moment in the Italian Renaissance is the writings of Zuccari, especially the Idea de’picttori, sculptori ed architetti, published in 1607. The Idea of Beauty inherited from Plato, whereby beauty is considered to be in the Intellect or in the mind, and applied to human action and characters, now becomes the subject of re-interrogation. The question thus becomes: can this image of Beauty, which is in the mind (harmony, symmetry, proportion, etc.) and also holds a spiritual value, be projected to the physical world as a picture or an architecture? It is with such questioning that Zuccari develops the notions of Disegno interno and Disegno esterno, whereby artistic creations are considered to be the externalization of the (spiritual) inside design. Hence, Zuccari opens a new perspective in which the spiritual idea of Beauty can be transferred to the experienced world of objects.

Nevertheless, the idea of Disegno interno was not completely ignored by Renaissance architects, although in contrast with Zuccari, they did not attribute any spiritual values to it. For example, Alberti (1485) in his famous book De re aedificatoria, considers that “We shall call Design a firm and graceful pre-ordering of the lines and angles, conceived in the mind and contrived by an ingenious Artist” (Alberti, 1775, p. 2 ). Yet the main contribution of Alberti to Design thinking and architecture is found somewhere else. By reactivating the basic concept of the Roman architect Vitruvius, such as Voluptas, commoditas and necessitas (aesthetic look, usage and efficiency concerning a building) he orients the main aesthetic and design goals of fifteenth century architects (along with those who followed), and he also proposes some basic criteria for urbanists. It is worthwhile to mention that in his revolutionary work, Alberti does not refer to Vitruvius by name. This may reveal how in the Ancient world the engineers were considered as Craftsmen: they left behind them their oeuvres, and not their names.

By the 17th century craft is definitively identified as art. For example, Descartes (considered as the father of modern technology), in his project to become “like masters and possessors of nature”, (“nous rendre comme maîtres et possesseurs de la nature”, Discours de la méthode, part 6, 128), still refers to the word art as a method or process used to transform nature. Using the word art for mechanical arts will still be common in the 18th century, especially in the French tradition. For example, Diderot deals especially with the Mechanical Arts in his article of the Encylopédie entitled “Art”. (Diderot, 2015, 82–101)

The 18th century can be considered as the most important turning point in the destiny of Craft, as during that century, Craft will gradually leave its place in favor of technology and fine arts.

It is during the 18th century that the knowledge or the savoir-faire of artisans becomes organized as objectified technical knowledge. On this subject, it is important to remember that for the Encyclopédistes, society now possesses an unalterable memory of technical knowledge and that, as d’Alembert (1759) states, it is a “system of knowledge that can be reduced to rules: positive, invariable and independent of caprice or opinion”.

In 1777 Johan Beckmann coins the word technology. By this he means “the science of techniques”, or more precisely: “Technology is the science which teaches the treatment of natural products or the knowledge of the trades”. (Ropohl, 1984) The legacy of this terminology in the 20th century will be a permanent source of discord in the academic milieu. Beckmann’s term does not seem to have any great effect on the Anglo-Saxon culture, since the English word technology refers mainly to machines or devices and not to “the science of techniques”. On the contrary, contemporary French scholars will prefer Beckmann’s definition of technology. Regardless of

current academic disputes, what is the key for our topic is that in the 18th century, the long tradition of Craft is finally buried, in favor of technology. But the destiny of the artes mechanicae will still be in suspense. The mechanists still have to struggle before they become themselves accepted as engineers.

Another important event in the 18th century is that the speculative idea of Beauty, inherited from Plato and Aristotle, will undergo a profound transformation. With the influence of British empiricists such as Salisbury, Addison, Hutcheson and Hume, the idea of beauty now corresponds to sensuality or to sensual perception, as we experience in our relations with the objects of the physical world. The French politician and philosopher Victor Cousin proposes an eloquent summary and synthesis of the British sensualists and their aesthetic theories in the 19th century (see Cousin, 1858).

In 1750 Baumgarten coins the word Aesthetics. Originally the idea of Aesthetics is closely related to epistemology, in the effort to promote a new mode of knowing or a new type of knowledge, called aesthetic knowledge. However, under the influence of Kant, it will be considered as a taste and/ or a commonly shared feeling in front of objects of art (sensus communis), and appreciated with a disinterested attitude (Kant, 1790 § 2 and § 20). Yet, and most importantly, in 1764 Winckelmann establishes the first idea of the system of Fine Arts. (See Kristeller, 1952; and Rancière, 2011.) From that moment onwards it becomes impossible to talk about art independently of aesthetic values. But the system of fine-arts established by Winckelmann is not exactly what we today call fine-arts. Some artistic disciplines like music and ballet will be added much later on.

In the 18th century the role of Diderot is primordial for the constitution of the “System of Technical Knowledge” as well as for the Beaux-Arts. As an Encyclopédiste he contributes to the storage and the cataloging of craftsmen’s knowledge (savoir-faire), and is mainly responsible for commissioning special drawings or boards which clearly indicate the artisans’ skills and gestures in real work situations. Diderot will also be the first art critic in France (see Seznec, 2007).

During the first industrial revolution in the eighteenth century, as trades passes to the manufactures, a certain awareness of design also appears. In Wedgwood, an English manufacture of porcelain and faïence established in 1759, the new workman — the designer — is now paid twice as much as the ordinary craftsman, and his job consists mainly of drawing designed objects according to market demands: differentiation of sex, social classes and age groups (Orel, 2016a). But design, in order to constitute itself as an autonomous discipline, still has to wait until the 20th century for its full development.

Beyond the emergence of the term “technology” and the early simmering of design culture in the manufactures, there exists another important moment during the 18th century: the appearance of what can be called the inventors-craftsmen, or the proto-engineers. Among these engineers, we can mention the names of Thomas Newcomen (atmospheric engine) and James Watt (steam engine). But the birth of the new engineering profession becomes the subject of different debates and interpretations. For the common understanding, these engineers were simply mechanists in the tradition of Artes mechanicae. But for some others, like Vico, they were more than that. Giambattista Vico (1710) in his essay, “On the most ancient wisdom of the Italian”, seeks the origin of the term engineer, in a concept that belongs to a mental process. For him the term ingenium denotes the ability or the power to “connect diverse and separate elements”. And he considers that this mental operation is not only related to efficiency (adjustment, functioning) but also to aesthetic values, since the engineer seeks to obtain a “beauty of proportion”.

We can even argue that, despite the gradual disappearance of craftsmen, the very first scientists of the 18th century were more or less in the craft tradition. For example, Faraday, who received little formal education and had a limited mathematical background, managed however to invent electromagnetic rotary devices. We had to wait much later for his inventions to be based on a definite scientific principle, which is established by Maxwell (“A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field” published in 1865).

Recently, Paul Forman has remarked that the classical distinction between science and technology has become less important today. According to him, the historical discourse on science was important during the era of modernity (Enlightenment, the industrial revolution, and the formation of nation states) whereas in the post-modern age (he situates it around 1980) the discourse on science loses its predominance to technology. Or as he puts it more bluntly: “postmodernity is when science is subsumed under technology” (Forman, 2007). From this perspective we can argue that today’s technology (in the information or the digital age) has not only absorbed the craft tradition, not only the mechanists, the inventors-craftsmen and the engineers, but has also absorbed three centuries of scientific tradition.

In the 19th century when craft seems to be sent to the remnants of history — since it is absorbed on one side by technology, and on the other side by fine arts — craft makes an unexpected reappearance during the rapid industrialization of Britain. But craft will not be all alone in its reappearance — it is partnered with fine arts.

In the heydays of rising capitalism, the new factories and their normalization and uniformization of human gestures and tastes, create a counter

movement: The “Arts and Craft Movement” of William Morris and Mathew Arnold. In that century of revolutions, the craft problem resurfaces.

At the same time, the “distant drums” of design start to approach Europe. Oscar Wilde plays an important role concerning the reception of this new trend into England in the 19th century. Although he has defended the cause of craft in the UK, as a sympathizer of socialism and as a friend of W. Morris (Wilde, 1969, 1079–1104; Wilde, 1913, 109 sq.) he will be the publicist of design after his visit to the United States. (Wilde, 1913, 157 sq.) The arrival of American design into France will be much later, mainly promoted by Raymond Loewy during the 50s. This American industrial designer of French origin who was well publicized by the cover of Time Magazine (Oct. 31, 1949 issue), will have an immense success with the French translation of his famous book, Never Leave Well Enough Alone (La laideur se vend mal).

But before design declares its full autonomy, it remains in a state of compromise; pulled between the general issues of technology and fine arts on one side, craft and fine arts, on the other side.

At the time when household devices are becoming totally mechanized, (Giedion 1948), design activity gets involved in “Work-saving objects”, where ergonomic criteria were mostly dominant. In the mid 20th century, design tries to find itself a place between fine arts and technology, and for some time it will call itself, especially in France, Esthétique Industrielle.

When design gives a special importance to Form in the beginning of 20th century, movements such as Art Deco, De Stijl, Vorticism, Futurism and Bauhaus emerge. In these movements design had to comprise with the fine arts as much as with craft by considering itself as applied arts.

More recently, was the attempt of design to liberate itself from “technology”. At the end of the 20th century, the project of design’s full autonomy is encouraged by the writings of Herbert Simon, the Nobel Prize winner in Economics. In his book The Sciences of the Artificial (chap. 5), he proposes a larger conception of design: “Everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones”. In relation with this project, he considers that “designers” are not only engineers and architects, but also managers and social planners. Today, to this larger understanding of design, we can add also the workers in Informatics (software design) and in A.I. (robotic design). In close relation with this broad understanding of design, we can also mention a recent domain of research called designology (Gasparski & Orel, 2014), which proposes to unify different forms of design knowledge and design practices, into a coherent design discipline.

To summarize, whereas craft had been at the common core of technology, fine arts and design, by the end of the 20th century, each of these three domains of activity had become an autonomous discipline. But in the meantime, what has happened to craft? Did it really retreat from the historical scene? In these early decades of the 21st century some significant signs show that it may not be case.

To demonstrate the actuality of craft, we will first give a few snapshots of signs that point to the continuing persistence of craft, followed by the proposal of an analytical approach that will enable us to elucidate the complex and contemporary persistence of craft.

The Actuality of Craft: Some Snapshots

Taking examples respectively from the domains of Design, Fine-Arts, the craft production of the layman, and consumer sensibility towards craftworks, this section will illustrate few aspects of today’s persistence of craft.

Craft & Design Process: Some signs suggest that the idea of craft as knowledge or as skills persists inside the design profession. Recent scholars have more or less accepted that the so-called tacit knowledge in design activities could have some relation with craft. (Sennett, 2008, 72–74) Under the influence of the philosopher Michael Polanyi, (Polanyi, 1962) instead of designer’s knowledge being considered as completely objectified, it was commonly accepted that in design activities and processes, a tacit (or an implicit) knowledge exists. To give a general idea of what tacit knowledge is, we can start by stating that it is a certain number of shared values of the discipline concerning the making processes. These values are considered to be unconscious or pre-conscious and they are not formulated in a propositional or written form, but nevertheless present themselves as an “invisible chart” to which designers refer intuitively or quasi-instinctively whilst exercising their profession. Studies on tacit knowledge in design originally began in the late 20th century and continue to be important today. But relating tacit knowledge so rapidly with craft risks to only be a lip-service to craft, and therefore needs further analysis.

Craft & Fine Arts: Modern fine arts refer to certain qualities of craft culture, such as work or dexterity. Since the development of conceptual art (since Marcel Duchamp) and what is today called “contemporary art” (McCarty, Jeff Koons, etc.), the artist increasingly plays the role of a “manager” at the head of a new financial system (art business) where the ideas of oeuvre, work and démarche become obsolete. Even the distinction of painting, sculpture and engraving do not exist anymore: the contemporary artist is just a plastician. In reaction to these recent transformations of fine arts, some art critics, such as Aude de Kerros draw our attention to dissident artists whom they frame as partisans of the “True Art” : those

who still know how to use their hands, how to grip the materials in their artistic creations (Kerros, 2016).

Craft & the Layman’s Productions: In the late 20th century some economists and social scientists observed the development of a new type of craft activity, which is independent of industry and the service sectors.

To these craft activities, exercised by the laymen – i.e. by the people who did not necessary had a formal craft education – different labeling was proposed: “proconsumerism” (Toffler), “self-service economy” (Gershuny), “invisible economy” (De Kerorguen), “autonomiques”(Aznar) and “domestic economic activity” (Gorz). The common term by which this new trend of craft is better known today is the “Do It Yourself” (D.I.Y.) activities or productions. The most recent developments of D.I.Y. show that these craft activities can be helped by modern technological devices like “3 D Prints” and the generalization of “Fablabs”. According to some prospective views, the results of these auto-crafting activities are susceptible to change the nature of today’s products, due to the affective and personal elements involved in such productions.

Craft & the Consumer: As a last example we may refer to a recent craft sensibility which can be detected in the attitudes of consumers towards objects of daily life. This sensibility already existed as a cultural specification in some counties like Japan (The Folk Crafts Movement). But today an emerging craft sensibility can be observed in many Western countries, posited as a counter movement to the frenetic globalization of the world economy. Regardless of which craft production (ethno-design, proxemicdesign etc.) triggers this new craft sensibility, it shows that actual consumers wish to be surrounded by artisanal objects. We suggest that this is something else than to live in a technological or digital environment (connections between household devices, for example), as it is more like living in a natural milieu, where the relations between consumers and artisanal objects represent a harmonization or a natural composition, such as between a bee and a flower. This new sensibility for crafted objects is seen as a means to better master one’s individual space and time. This is manifested in practices such as, the preference for locally crafted objects instead of standardized global products, and having freedom in one’s own rhythm and use of daily objects, instead of “fast” consummation.

II

In the first part of this article (theory) we have observed the stability and continuity of craft tradition until the 18th century. But from the 18th century onwards, we noticed its ramifications as technology, fine arts, and later on, as design. Yet, we recognized some current “signs” of craft which could persuade us of both the vitality and the persistence of craft tradition today. But should we be contented only with these “signs”? If we scratch

the surface, the persistence of craft seems to be a much more complex affair than what it appears to be.

In order to go beyond these simplistic observations of craft-signs, we propose a more analytical approach for the rest of our study. This consists of referring to three distinct figures by which we can detect the complex persistence of craft tradition in our own actuality. These figures are: 1) hidden craft 2) ambient craft, and finally 3) manifest craft.

The Hidden Craft

We can identify the hidden craft by its three major characteristics.

Firstly, we need to study the cognitive aspect of hidden craft.

According to the partisans of tacit theory in design studies, there exists a kind of knowledge which is not based on objectification, i.e. application of commonly accepted concepts, rules and laws during the processes of making or production. In a sense their approach to tacit theory is framed by negativity. When they take away all the objective or manifest aspects of design knowledge they come to the conclusion that there must be tacit knowledge. But what is tacit knowledge? Isn’t it another way to say that there is “X knowledge”? But what is the content of this X knowledge? Looking at this issue from our perspective, i.e. with positivity, we can consider this X Knowledge, this tacit knowledge, as a “residue” of a distant past, a tekhne. In other words, it is a knowledge inherited from the artisans of the past, despite the fact that design had become autonomous from craft many years before.

What we consider as a residual aspect of craft knowledge, may also correspond to – as some phenomenological thinkers, like Searle, presuppose the back-ground competence: According to Searle “Some of one’s capacities enable one to formulate and apply rules, principles, beliefs, etc., in one’s conscious performances. But these are still in need of Background capacities for their application” (Searle, 1992, 190). To us, this seems like a significant avowal: the background competence is power. It strongly reminds us of Aristotle’s concept concerning craft: craft is an “active power” (poietike), it is the power used for the execution of an oeuvre.

Yet, the phenomenological thinkers do not explicitly admit the presence of craft tradition in tacit knowledge or in background competence. Furthermore, they think that tacit knowledge and background competences work perfectly well in all its components. Their operations are ready to provide practical solutions to the objectives of design. Our understanding of the “residual” is that craft competences are not transmitted as a whole: they are not intact in their transmission. They are in fragments or in shreds,

and sometimes their absences can be filled in by the elements (rules, principles, finalities) of the profession under which this silent craft operates.

Concerning the nature of these fragments we may refer to an ancient distinction made by the craftsmen: finis operis and finis operantis. “Finis operis” consists of following and applying the right craft rules in order to create or fabricate an object. I.e. if I follow such and such rule I will have a final work which is realized as a consequence of my operative acts. Whereas, finis operantis is the finality of the craftsman himself: it consists of creating or fabricating an oeuvre with positive values: a unique, perfect, resistant, usable, etc., oeuvre is to be made. So, from the perspective of craft transmission it is possible to say that some of the fragments in this residue may be washed away, whereas some others remain when they operate underneath design activities. For example, if the operational rules or principles are absent (or feint) in this residue, the ideal of a perfect oeuvre may still, nevertheless, be active. If it is the case, then the finality of the perfect oeuvre can be considered not inherent to design professions, but as a residual fragment of craft tradition. In this sense, the rhetoric of “quality”, “durability”, etc. of a product that we often find in today’s design discourse can also be attributed to this residual aspect of craft’s finality. [For the origins of finis operis and finis operantis see St Thomas Aquinas, Commentaries on the Book of Sentences of Pierre Lombard, IV Sent, dist. 16, q. 3, art. 1 and Jacques Maritain, 1965, 124].

A second characteristic of hidden craft is its secrecy. This archetype of craft tradition is related to the secrecy of the profession: a savoir faire, a know-how, not to be revealed to competitors. The partisans of tacit knowledge have hardly considered the concept of tacit from this perspective, despite the fact that the literal meaning of the word tacitus (from which comes the word tacit) is “that which must be kept silent”.

In 1931 the famous German historian Oswald Spengler made the following prediction: European countries, “instead of jealously guarding for themselves the technical knowledge which constituted their best asset (...) offered it with complacency to the whole world (by exporting) secrets, processes, methods”. He goes on to say that it is this transfer of know-how that would be responsible for” the annihilation of the European economy” (The Decline of the West (1918)). Although Spengler was referring to the necessity of the secrecy of the technical knowledge of his time (process, method), in this reflection he shows that he was still thinking within the mentality of the craft tradition: he was trying to rehabilitate the secrecy-instinct of the artisan “in-bedded” in technological knowledge.

On this point, Spengler was certainly not wrong, because the very idea of secrecy is inherent in the word craftsmen. In the Middle Ages, the common name for craftsmen was “Mystery-Men”, (a word driven from

ministerium). Even in the 16th century, Francis Bacon used the same word when he talked about craftsmen in his The New Atlantis (See Orel, 2016b).

A third aspect of hidden craft is its capacity to be spontaneously inventive.

This aspect of craft knowledge or skills invites us to think about craft not always as a routine or as a fixed cognitive activity. It can also be at the source of inventions. During the 14th century when the Latin word Ars (craft) gradually left its place for Art, especially in a regional language of France, (Langue d’oïl) the craftsmen gave it a secret meaning. When the word A.R.T. is read backwards), it represents the motto of the craftsmen: Trouve (invent). Realize. Adapt. Trover or Trouver means to find, to compose, to invent or to discover, and it is the langue d’oïl translation of the Latin word tropare. The word Trouvères was also used for the troubadours of the North regions of France: those who invent a song or compose a poem.

But let us continue with the recent history of technology for our examples of creative craft. We have already mentioned the case of Faraday and his craft-based invention of electromagnetic devices. We could also talk about Edison in a similar way. As for today’s creative craft taking place under technology, we can mention Roland Moreno (inventor of the computer chip used on smart cards) and the Noble prize winner in physics, Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, who not only considered himself as a “craftsman” but also founded the “Workshops for technical creation”, open to the general public.

However, when we talk about this subject, we must clarify that we are not referring to “rational reflections on inventions”, but to spontaneous inventions. This opposition can easily be understood, for example, by the oppositions of terms such as creativity/creation; inventivity/invention innovatics/innovation. For the “rational reflection on invention” we can go back as far as the writings of Ramon Lull (Ars Magna, 1305) and Leibniz (De arte combinatori, 1691). These kinds of reflections had their source in the tradition of Artes liberales (and later in mathematics) and not in the tradition of Artes mechanicae. For a long time, research on spontaneous inventions of craftsmen was limited to case studies. But today some research fields tempt to discover the general principles behind these spontaneous inventive acts. On this, the most recent studies on “Serendipity” can be considered as a promising avenue for research to better understand the presence of craft tradition in inventions, and in the domains of technology and science (See Orel, 1985). Finally, it’s worthwhile to remember that all these inventions take place underneath the rubrics of technology or science, and are not presented in an overt fashion, such as an “inventors fair". Therefore we have considered them as one of the main characteristics of hidden or silent craft.

The Ambient Craft

By “ambient craft” we mean the presence of craft traditions which are apparent but are taken for granted, because craft does not manifest itself as an autonomous act, but on the contrary, appears mostly in connection (composition or co-mixture) with other competences or techniques. These kinds of craft events neither send a strong craft-message, nor do they make special claims as craft knowledge or craft tradition. In the same manner, although observers of these events may get a certain craft signal, they do not delve deeper to read the craft messages behind such signals. This is because craft itself does not show itself as a distinct entity, but on the contrary appears in a composition or in co-mixture with technology, design or fine arts.

To illustrate the composite aspect of ambient craft we can again refer to the aforementioned example of “Arts appliqués” (applied arts). Here, craft was combined with fine arts and to a certain measure with some elements of technology (particularly ergonomics under the notable influence of Bauhaus). But the public eye did not consider this as a pure craft activity and the main contribution of this composition was mostly in its role of generating a proto-discipline of design. It’s also worthwhile to mention that when the word “design” was definitively introduced in France in the late 70s to gradually replace the Arts Appliquées, the public and even the media had some difficulties in assimilating the term. There was also a problem concerning the correct English pronunciation of the word “design”. As a remedy to this, a monthly French design review called itself, with a certain humor, “Di·zayn”.

Another aspect of ambient craft is its com-mixture with technology. A striking example is the alliance of auto-crafting (D.I.Y.) with technological devices like “3D prints” and the generalization of “Fablabs”. In these recent craft practices where craft and smart devices are tightly linked, there is no special “craft message” to be given to society. Most of the time, the public eye sees this as “another application” of intelligent devices. As for scholars of the social sciences, many of them believe it was just a recent mode of “appropriation” of new technologies. Nevertheless, some opinion leaders referred to elements of either craft tradition or new technologies in this new kind of co-mixture. Yet, it is worthwhile to remember that the initial impulse or encouragement for the com-mixture of D.I.Y and 3D prints came from the spokesmen of new technologies, such as Ray Kurzweil, and not necessarily from the partisans of the layman’s craft or D.I.Y.

Furthermore, a more recent example of the co-mixture of craft and technology is the new field of research in software engineering, called “software craftsmanship”. This research area is mainly inspired by the works of Richard Sennett’s (The Craftsman) and Freeman J. Dyson’s, (“Science as a Craft Industry”). In their Manifesto they refer to some traditional

artisanal values such as the finality of the perfect work (well craft software) and the solidarity of the guilds members (community of professionals), etc. Yet once again craft is not considered as an autonomous discipline. Concerning their “Manifesto”, we posit that it would be more correct to characterize it as a computer workers manifesto blended with some craft ingredients, and certainly not as a radical craftsmen manifesto.

The fact that craft is not sufficiently visible in these cases is due to its sporadic appearance in the domain of technology. Although for some period of time the idea of craft can be enthusiastic, eventually craft becomes something “normal”: craft gets naturalized. But this does not necessarily mean that craft is always absolutely integrated to technology, but rather at any time craft can declare its autonomy in different forms, in unexpected, or even in radical ways.

Finally, we can mention a sort of “reciprocal mimetism” of craft and design, especially in the domain of fashion design. As a marketing strategy, “fashion design” produces “limited series” like an artisan would, and sometimes it the artisans who try to give an industrial dimension to their own creations to reach international markets. This was especially encouraged by UNESCO, and sometimes by government backed organizations like the Craft village in New Delphi. These initiatives are also important for educational strategies: the final aim is to gradually transform artisans into designers.

Through these examples we can better understand how the apparent or the ambient persistence of craft tradition does not bother the public much, because in these cases craft is not claiming its autonomy: it is not showing itself as a radical or as a dissident act.

The Manifest Craft

The two preceding figures of craft: hidden craft and ambient craft, show that there is a persistent continuity and vitality of craft tradition, even if ignored by academic research (especially hidden craft) and not recognized as such by the public (ambient craft), because of its composite or mixed nature. But there is another aspect attaining to the persistence of craft tradition which is neither related to how it should be “proved” by the researcher, nor related to how it is received and “approved” by the public, but rather to how it is “experienced” by individuals in their everyday life. By this we want to emphasis the appearance of craft sensibility, as can be observed in relations between products and their users and in the arrival of new life-styles. It is difficult to be indifferent to manifest craft, which depends on personal convictions and not on research or opinions. In this figure craft manifests itself as a spontaneous revolt – as dissidence or as

disobedience – and often refuses to compromise with the frenzied development of consumerism.

Before going further we must give some precisions on the definitions of “manifest craft”. Manifest craft can have at least three distinct meanings.

1) It can be considered as the manifestation of craft “in the very figure of the everyday objects”, as Tarkko Oksala suggested. In this sense we can detect craft by the appearance of the object. In a more phenomenological sense craft appears, it shows itself and reveals itself through some everyday objects.

2) Beside the ontological aspect of manifest craft, we can also refer to the attitudes of the persons who are sensible to craft production. In this second sense, “manifest craft” can be considered as an “arousing” of a new craft sensibility of the consumer.

3) Finally, we can talk about manifest craft in the sense of “craft manifests or manifestos”, like the manifestos of the Arts and Crafts movement.

Concerning the actuality of manifest craft, we will refer mainly to the first and second meanings. As for the craft manifests or manifestos, we will tackle this subject from a historical perspective and not in the contemporary context of craft.

Without a doubt, the best historical example of manifest craft is the “Arts and Crafts movement”. But we must look closer to some salient characteristics of that movement in order to determine in which way it differs from actual manifest craft (especially from craft sensibility).

Craft radically appeared during The Arts and Crafts movement of the 19th century. Although in this movement craft was in alliance with the fine arts, craft represented the matrix force in this relation. The fine arts “part” of this movement was not, for example, as important as the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood movement. The craft message addressed by William Morris was essentially to the “male” working class. At the same time other craft organizations, such as the “Guild of Handicraft” were even opposed to women’s participation. As for middle-class women, they were considered as Home Angels. These women, “fragile” by status and subjected to their husbands, were allowed to partake in “domestic” craft production, but not to be included in a craft organization. The idea of Home-angels was popularized by a poem of Coventry Patmore, which was later fiercely opposed by Virginia Woolf in order to defend the civil rights of women. Furthermore, May Morris, the daughter of William Morris, created the “Woman’s Guild of Arts” in 1907 with the aim of rectifying the exclusion of women from craft organizations. (See on this subject Anika Dačić, 2016.) In other words, the 19th century’s craft revolt was addressed to workers and

factories, as a critic of both the modes of production and of the ugly mass produced daily objects, (already a debut of design consciousness). Today’s craft revolt, in manifest craft, is arising not from factories but from homes. It is a critic about the standardization of products in global markets’ and their associated styles of living.

A second salient feature of today’s manifest craft is that it is not a general worldview as was the case for the Arts and Crafts movement. The Arts & Crafts was strongly linked to the socialist movement of the 19th century. This was also the major ideology of that time. But to explain what we mean by “ideology” in this specific case, we can refer to a distinction that was made by Mannheim (1936) between “total ideologies” and “particular Ideologies”. A “total ideology” implies a global world-view in which majority of social actors is involved, whereas “particular ideologies” are limited to specific domains and are related mainly to the attitudes of individuals. So, we can consider today’s manifest craft as a particular ideology, related to our relations with everyday objects and not necessarily as a total worldview, as was the case for the Arts and Crafts movement.

The importance of manifest craft (in the sense of craft manifesting in the figures of objects) can be detected by the recent multiplication of craft boutiques, craft fairs, and the international diffusion of some magazines (ex. The Simple Things). But maybe the most important feature of manifest craft can be found in the arousal of a craft sensibility in the consumer. But how does this craft sensibility manifest itself today? Can it be considered as a spontaneous revolt: i.e. as a manifestation taking place in the street or the public places? Not necessarily. This manifest craft sensibility is mostly mediated and it appears in “representations”, for example in social media, and not in an immediate manner like a social movement which manifests itself in public places. It may be paradoxical to say that manifest craft is in “representations” and does not manifest in the streets. However, it becomes less paradoxical when we take into account the importance of Internet platforms which can “immediately” diffuse any particular ideology, including craft sensibility.

Now the question which arises is whether we can attribute any political color to this “particular ideology” of today’s craft sensibility, and if it is possible, what are the main criteria that we should take into account?

It is possible to attribute two different political contents to this spontaneous revolt, depending on the nature of the relations that consumers have with the products. We can use the term dissident acts if the relation is connected to a critical attitude towards the products, and if the final aim, in doing so, is to correct the negative aspects of the existing products. This critical attitude may also lead to the improved future development of products. However, relations with products can also be considered as reactionary acts, which consist of rejecting (partially or in toto) the existing

system of products as such, as well as the life-styles which are imposed by the same system.

Craft Sensibility of “Dissident” Consumers

It is certainly very tempting to relate the dissident acts of the consumers to one of the most important political movements of our time, environmental or green consciousness. Yet we must be attentive to some distinguishing features of craft sensibility as a critical attitude to products. Furthermore, these features may not correspond exactly to green dissident acts.

The environmental catastrophe to which we are confronted was well explained in 2009, by a group of scientists lead by the Stockholm Resilience Center. Their research assessed that the bio-capacity of our planet is pushed beyond its limits, by putting in danger the major natural systems that represent the earth’s ability to sustain life (greenhouse-gas concentration in the atmosphere, biodiversity, marine ecosystems, etc.). Faced with this planetal danger some green dissidences are focused on food (organically grown agriculture with no GMO, biodegradable packages, locally grown food, etc.), on transportation (green cars) and on the habitat (sustainable cities and new conceptions of urbanism).

Alex Steffen, an opinion leader on the future green houses and cities, has proposed some ideas concerning our future relations with everyday objects. His formula is striking, as according to him these future objects will be at the same time “Green and Bright”. They are “Bright” in the sense that they will be smart or intelligent objects. “Green” in the sense that they will be inspired by crafted “tools” of traditional societies. Although tools are not exactly the same things as the devices or the everyday objects that we use in our homes, here we record nevertheless, an overt reference to craft. But does the anticipation of the author represent a craft sensibility or a green consciousness? It is not an easy question to answer immediately. If we take into consideration that the craft perspective can correct negative aspects of existing products and help them improve environmentally, we may say that a craft sensibility exists in this attitude. But in this case, today’s existing objects are not questioned in toto – especially their in-built intelligence is to be preserved. So maybe the best way to characterize this critical view vis-à-vis the existing products is as a “dissident” attitude, and not a “reactionary” one. Yet the question remains: Must we conclude that, after all, craft sensibility is just a part of green consciousness? If it is not the case, then how can we be sure that there exists a certain craft sensibility distinct from the green consciousness?

In order to answer this question, let us take a look at how today’s consumers may criticize everyday objects proposed by industry.

Critique of the Form: Use authentic and original objects instead of products produced by standard models or reproduced by these same models with some combinatorial elements (the method of variance).

Critique of the Material: Use products which should endure over a long period of time, instead of “programmed obsolescence” products.

Critic of the Usage: Use products which are adequate to one’s own rhymes and gestures, instead of so called “user friendly products” with extensive user manuals.

Critic of the Functioning: Use products which can function manually or by the natural elements, instead of products with high fossil energy consumption.

It is possible to distribute these critics in terms of green consciousness and craft sensibility. The critic of the material and the critic of the functioning may be put under the account of green consciousness. But we cannot say the same thing, for example, for the critic of the form. How can we be sure that standardized daily objects (or their variances) harm green consciousness? The desire for an authentic and unique object, can it not be considered rather as a manifest of craft sensibility? Briefly, although the figure of manifest craft sensibility can sometimes be confused with green consciousness, we cannot completely ignore its specificity, as we tried to show in a cavalier manner in the above example.

Craft Sensibility of “Reactionary” Consumers

Another way to interpret this emergent craft sensibility is as a “reactionary” act.

History gives us a good example of reactionary attitudes towards everyday objects. During The Ancient Régime, the aristocracy resisted the generalization of “comfort” and “luxury” objects. The diffusion of these objects became possible due to the mass production of the manufactures, promoted by the bourgeoisie. The aristocracy resisted this transformation of daily objects by defending the “ceremonial” aspects of objects inherited from medieval times. Henceforth, in their relations with objects, everything had to be by duty, and nothing for pleasure or for utility. The main argument of the aristocracy against luxury objects were in the moral values which were represented by “patina” furniture. This reaction was well formulated by Father Croiset, a famous defender of the morale of the nobility: “The bourgeois who has just made fortune can never distinguish himself from the man of quality except by a more brilliant luxury” (see Orel, 2016a, 139–160).

Today, this kind of reactionary craft sensibility can be assimilated to the attitudes of consumers who reject the high-tech or the digital-tech way of living, especially when they turn to vintage, to “happy home interiors”, to handmade objects, or to exotic importations. We should not, of course, be naive enough to immediately attribute this to craft sensibility. In such attitudes, the consumers may get caught in the web of marketing strategies of big companies. Some years ago, there was an interior design collection launched by a well-known American designer who sold them under names such as “Log Cabin”, “New England”, “Jamaica”, etc. These collections claimed to restore the bourgeois comfort of the past. These kinds of marketing strategies put the consumers in a double bind: on the one hand, consumers are solicited to be spontaneous, creative and the master of their tastes, or, to be free to “make their own mistakes of taste”. On the other hand, industry imposes models and standards of taste or style, so that they can personalize their own lifestyle. However, the recent craft sensibility of “reactionary” consumers seems to no longer be disillusioned by the promoted life-styles and the products which come with them, since their life-styles become non compatible with the products, but rather with the oeuvres, i.e. with the handmade objects. Yet, is it possible to label this attitude, which refuses (partially or in toto) the universe of (industrial) products in favor of oeuvres, as an illustration of a kind of “conservatism” or conservatism attitude?

Conservatism as a world-view or ideology favors traditional values and opposes progressivism. These traditional values are not limited to the private sphere, but include all of society’s institutions: religion, education, family, economic institutions, etc. We can mention a rare example where craft has participated to a conservative ideology. It was the case of a political party created in France in 1953 which called itself the “Union for the Defense of Tradesmen and Artisans”. This conservative craft movement – which represents the exact opposition of the progressive movement of “Arts and Crafts” in the 19th century – was transformed into an extreme right party after its dissolution in 1962.

Although we can talk about the “conservationist” aspects of today’s craft sensibility, they have nothing to do with global conservative values, with the conservative world-view or with a “total ideology” in the sense of Mannheim. Craft sensibility also has no relation with a global social movement or a political party. Moreover, its claim is limited to our relationship with daily objects and freely chosen lifestyles. Therefore, we may rightly say that reactionary craft sensibility is independent of any codified moral values. It is rather related to personnel ethics and personnel experience. It is about “how we must live with daily objects”. The dilemma which “reactionary” craft sensibility has to resolve is: should we live with closedobjects, like “products”, with their frozen functions which also condition their users? Or should we live with open-objects like the “oeuvres”, sources

of rich symbolism and which permit users to give personal meanings to them, also enabling an intimate relation between object and user.

Throughout history there have been many attempts to “engraft” a moral to craft. The sophists wanted it to be used for the formation of a “good” citizen. Plato required that craftsmen and artists recognize the values of the higher or transcendental order – like “good” and “beauty”. The Middle Ages considered craft as a servile (Artes mechanicae ) profession. The Renaissance wanted for those who exercise craft to also have the right to enter into the exclusive club of virtuose gentlemen. Finally, the 18th century got rid of craft, maybe because there were no more moral values left to be distributed, as all had gone to the fine arts and technology... Nevertheless, craft survived after the 18th century without any need of morals.

Before concluding we would like to underline once more the importance of the word “power”, by which we tried to identify craft in the beginning of our article. This idea was already emphasized by Aristotle as poietike and later on by Collingwood as “power to produce”. Moreover, we must remember that even the origin of the English word craft is itself driven from an Old Norse word kraptr, which literary means strength or power.

We hope that our article has helped to clarify that craft is not only power, but also has certain craftiness ... since as we have seen through the use of three different strategies, craft has survived up to now. It is as if this craft power knew how to hide itself underneath legitimate competences. Furthermore, it has also used a camouflage strategy by composing itself with other competences. Finally, from time to time craft has manifested overtly – in manifestos, in the figures of the objects, and in the manifestation of craft sensibility. Perhaps it is precisely because craft has used different strategies of resistance, that we can still talk today about The Persistence of Craft.

III Case Finland

Introductory Remarks around Innovation and Education

We have presented theoretical remarks on the history of craft as tekhne or ars and their later existence in forms like Arts and Crafts. These ideas have faced the rapid technological development since Enlightenment and forward up to movements like Industrial Design, AI etc. In order to test these views, we discuss them in the Finnish context. Today the main inspiration for that is the fact that our publication forum and potential activities (of CTD) are hosted this time in Finland (HAMK).

Finnish culture is considered to be young from the Western point of view due to the fact that Finland was located in periphery behind Sweden. We

have some vernacular examples of high-quality design and innovations since Enlightenment but ideologically well-documented design starts in 19th century and especially during Arts and Crafts movements in the form of National Romanticism. This short period was theoretically argued due to the careful study of Carelian houses (1900-1) by Yrjö Blomstedt (1871–1912) and Victor Sucksdorff. The movement wanted to rehabilitate Finnish achievements since far history using the Kalevala, the Finnish national epic (1849), as an argument. In craft world the main manifestation of the movement happened in the Paris World Fair 1900.

The Finnish pavilion at the Paris 1900 World Fair was designed by architects Gesellius, Lindgren and Saarinen and contained integrated artworks from the sector of fine arts. (Gallen-Kallela/ Blomstedt, 1931) The original pavilion exemplified continental Art Nouveau outside, and the national pathos was concentrated inside. Soon the architects wan also the competition of The National Museum of Finland (1903), which is the extreme case of National Romanticism. The same museum is of course the place where to start the lesson in Finnish craft tradition. Before this it is maybe the time to answer to the slogan of our paper represented by W. Morris ((1889); 2020) :

Past times: are we reactionists, then, anchored in the dead past? Indeed I should hope not; nor can I altogether tell you how much of the past is really dead. I see about me now evidence of ideas recurring which have long been superseded".

In 1921 Alvar Aalto wrote (1972, 12/ Lahti, 2004, 8):

Nothing old will be reborn anew. But it does not either completely disappear. And, that, what once has been, is always born again in a new form.”

The education of architects had its first days in Finland around 1824 (Helamaa, 2000) but only stabilized in 1879 when The Polytechnic Institute was established. Gustaf Nyström (1856–1917) was one of the key teachers in architectural education (since 1879). He, however, presented Swedish speaking tradition and the old school of Neo-Renaissance. New winds were promoted by another famous teacher Onni Tarjanne (1864–1946) who started teaching in 1889 from purely Finnish background. In the side of practice, he designed in 1902 the Finnish National Theatre in extreme nationalism but turned toward white Vienna Jugend (i.e. Vienna Secession) already in 1903 in Takaharju Sanatorium preceding even the becoming functionalism.

The three young architects of the Finnish pavilion came from the same course (started 1893) in Helsinki Polytechnic (later Aalto). Eliel Saarinen (1873–1950) created two carriers first in Finland and then in the USA.

Armas Lindgren (1874–1929) was also an important architect. Both became influential design educators, Saarinen in Cranbrook (Christ-Janer, 1951) and Lindgren in Helsinki (Blomstedt, 1951, 180). Lars Sonck (1870–1956) started 1894 one year after Saarinen and won important church competitions very early in Turku and Tampere and later in Helsinki. He also got II prize in Töölö town-plan competition in 1889 and joined with the winner (his teacher) Gustav Nyström to make this masterpiece of Jugend in 1906. (Korvenmaa, 1997.)

There were also women students since 1879. The most famous of them included painter Helene Schjerfbeck, but especially Wivi Lönn (1872–1962), a future architect in world scale as well (Helamaa, 2000). Lönn started her studies in 1894 like Sonck. Both studied in Technical Institutes before Polytechnic, which explains their success already during study time. Lönn execised theatre planning in the office of Tarjanne. First, she won school competitions and the Tampere Fire Station competition (1907), also a master peace in National Romanticism. Somewhat later she won the shared II prize with Armas Lindgren in the international competition of Estonia Theatre (1909–1913). Their work is the realized one.

From the side of early Arts and Crafts it is worth to mention the Iris factory (1897–) led by Louis Sparre (1863–1964) and A. W. Finch (1854–1930), a famous person also as a pointillist. (Byars, 2004.) Besides The Polytechnic Institute (later Aalto), higher education in art and design had started in Finland in the “Institute of Industrial Design” (Taideteollinen korkeakoulu (1871–)). A central figure in arts and crafts education was Arttu Brummer (1891–1951). Brummer was also directing many other important institutes in design like the Museum of Applied Arts founded already in 1873. His wife Eva Brummer (1901–1989) was also a handicraft activist. (Byars, 2004.) From other teachers we may mention Paavo Tynell (1890–1973) who became a renowned lamp designer well ahead of his time.

Eliel Saarinen became the most important Finnish architect as regards world reputation and influence during and after Art Nouveau. He also continued his carrier up to modernist and toward International Style with his son Eero Saarinen (1910–1961). They both worked also on the side of arts and crafts and industrial design. (Byars, 2004.) Important connections of Eliel Saarinen include participation into the City Beautiful movement (e.g. Camillo Sitte).

The Golden days of National Romanticism and International Art Nouveau were soon over. Both were based on craft but now industry of serial mechanical production came into front. Eliel Saarinen was in good position in the USA to react on this revolution with Eero Saarinen and collaborators like Ch. Eames. In Finland the command was taken by Aino (1884–1949) and Alvar Aalto (1898–1976). (Kinnunen, 2005; Schildt, 1985; Lahti, 2004.) In age they are located between the generation of Eliel Saarinen

and that of Eero. The connections between all persons mentioned above were also close.

One reason for the early success of Finnish Functionalism was a close relation to Germany and Bauhaus (Whitford, 1984). First master peaces were creations inspired from that direction. In fact, Lazlo Moholy-Nagy (1895–1946) visited Finland before WWII to discuss design theory. Quite soon after the functionalist revolution Finnish architects and designers in close co-operation with industry took their destiny to their own hands. This meant the innovations around ARTEK (Art + Technics) founded in 1935 by A. & A. Aalto, M. Gullichsen and N. G. Hahl (Byars, 2004) and in the markets of design in general. Famous collaborators of ARTEK included Maija Heikinheimo (1908–1963) and Pirkko Stenros (1928–). Besides Germany, inspiration came from Sweden, also. In architecture Gunnar Asplund and in design Gregor Paulsson (1919/1986) are good names to be mentioned here.

After WWII we saw the rise of Finnish Design as one genre under Scandinavian Style. Furniture, dining tools, lightning and glass design were the most important branches of success in Periodical Design Fairs. Lisa Johansson-Pape (1907–1989), Ilmari Tapiovaara (1914–1999), Antti Nurmesniemi (1927–2003); Kai Frank (1911–1989), Bertil Gardberg (1916–2007); Helena Tynell (1918–2016), Yki Nummi (1925–1984); Gunnel Nyman (1909–1948), Tapio Wirkkala (1915–1985), Timo Sarpaneva (1926–2006) and Nanny Still (1926–2009) are good examples of success since mid 20th century. (Byars, 2004) They were all students of Arttu Brummer.

Very soon after the middle of the century another firm in textile and clothing design, Marimekko (1951-) (founded by Armi Ratia (1912–1979)) took a leading role as flagship of the lifestyle of the 1960s. Important textile designers of the period include G. Skogster-Lehtinen (1906–1994), Rut Bryk (1916–1999), Maija Isola (1927–2001), and Vuokko Nurmesniemi (1930–) (Byars, 2004). The amount of notable Finnish designers, active since 1960, is too large for all of them to be mentioned here. (See Korvenmaa, 2009.) Our intent is to discuss thinking behind their work in its critical points (Franck, 1978).

Modern design has its special roots already in the “Friends of Finnish Handicraft” society, founded in 1879 by the famous painter Fanny Churberg (1845–1892). The main sector of the society was textile design. Collaborators included many names already mentioned in this article, like Akseli Gallen-Kallela, Helen Schjerfbeck, Eliel Saarinen, Eva Brummer, Rut Bryk and Timo Sarpaneva. We may also mention Impi Sotavalta (1885–1943) working in the society between 1917–1939. She made wall-textiles, turned to “functionalism” and preceded Finnish modernism already in the 1920s.

Finnish design has survived from the most radical changes relatively well. The national ethos is not so clear anymore due to the global movements reacting to global challenges and even crises. Computation and AI were considered in the beginning in the early 60s as positive promising visions. Finland got also in this sector a good start, and Otaniemi CAD-lab was recognized among the ten most important labs in the world (Radford, 1991, 2; Helamaa, 2000, 69–). Digital design has been studied in many institutes, first of all in Media Centre Lume established since 1995 in Arabia, Helsinki (designed by Heikkinen-Komonen Architectes). Democratic ideas like user participation have been strong in housing design and urban planning (Kukkonen, 1984; Maarttola, 1998). Green movement is maybe the most challenging in design, and sustainable design has its role in industry as well (clean tech). New problems and crises arise, and today we envisage again the health problems like Covid-19. This calls back the forgotten days of tuberculosis and the Paimio Sanatorium of Alvar and Aino Aalto (1936) (closed in 1972).

Aesthetics (Scruton, 1980) and art theory in purely theoretical sense was studied first of all in University of Helsinki. Good start in the side of theory can be seen since the book Origins of Art, which Yrjö Hirn (1870–1952) published in London in 1900. (Rantavaara, 1977, 1979.) Most important books for designers included those discussing the origins of art and aesthetics in general (Aalto, 1972). Later Ragnar Josephson wrote in Sweden his book Konstverkets födelse (1946), which was the key source for designers in the 50s (Erik Kråkström in discussion in 1985). Also, phenomenology started to give inspirations around 1950 (Keijo Petäjä in discussion in 1985) as regards how to make artworks (see Heidegger, 1950; Bachelard, 1957; Pallasmaa, 2003). For practising planners and designers the book Rakennustaide renessanssista funktionalismiin (Building Art from Renaissance to Funktionalism) by Kyösti Ålander (1954) was important source of inspiration. Besides art theory, also art history of Finland has a strong connection to design culture in the study of old monuments, churches and city plans see Nikula, 1981). One important thing bringing together design and aesthetics is without doubt the active emergence of environmental aesthetics (Sepänmaa, 1988) and art education (Oksala, 1976; Routila, 1986).

Hidden Craft in Finland, Basic Instincts

The idea of design without named designers and without documented know-how can be detected in the vernacular culture of Finland exhibited in the Seurasaari Open-Air Museum in Helsinki. The importance of these roots has been clearly noticed by Sigfried Giedion (1888–1968) (Byars, 2004), who in his Space, Time and Architecture (1952) nailed finally Finnish reputation in design on the modern world map. (Pevsner & Honour, 1971) In fact, the idea of silent knowledge was discussed already

by Elias Lönnrot (1802–1884) who compiled the Kalevala – the Finnish national epic. (Oksala, 1986.) Alvar Aalto considered Lönnrot as the most remarkable Finn (discussion in office 1968). Lönnroth was a physician and promoted the idea that humans have their day-mind and night-mind. This gave Finns a good vaccination against the over-rationalism to come.

In one of his famous “Bent wood experiments” Alvar Aalto composed a “hundreds of years old grey pine fragment” with ARTEK detail. In larger scale his first atelier home was composed of an office part of white stone (functionalism) and a wooden black sleeping area. In West we may recall the opposition achieved with the names of Apollo and Dionysus and in global context the opposition of Yan and Yin. Elissa Aalto (1922–1994), the second wife, told often, that Alvar had strange tendency against totalitarian plans and when things were in too good order, he introduced a surprising effect which had to be accepted. This can be seen in the transition from white functionalism to red-brick style and in the use of strong white contrast keeping alive the contact to sources of inspiration.

In Finnish the original word for both Planning and Design (interpreted as dichotomy in English ) was “suunnittelu” which means in Greek “tropy > entropy” “direction > directing” (Meurman, 1947, 9). This may mean concrete direction or tolerant one between two extremes but also direction of life. In information aesthetics and modern ethics but also in ecology as well it is noted that humans tend to avoid monotonous and chaotic environments, totalitarian and anarchic life and prefer natural biodiversity. (Aalto, 1972; Oksala, 1986; Radford & Oksala, 2018.) Alvar Aalto applied these principles on the level of instinct and emotion. He was educated in Jyväskylä, the Athens of Finland, and probably had heard such things, but nobody knows for sure because such wisdom is a certain kind of knowhow kept away from the eyes of the potential competitors.

The education in the oldest Finnish grammar school, Lyceum of Jyväskylä, gave a good start for Aalto. As Vitruvius states both “Theory and Praxis” are needed. Poetics (by Horace) was well known in Lyceum and also by the private tutor of Alvar in art. This fellow, Jonas Heiska, was the first artist of the county and experienced in aesthetics. This education can be seen in the writings of Aalto. In one of his first essays in design theory, Aalto used famous tropic expression “form is a mystery” (Lahti, 2004, 7, 14.) showing preliminary understanding of tacit dimension of kowledge. Later he refers to Socrates and tells that he cannot answer the question “How to make good Architecure” – because “I do not know”. (Aalto, 1958 ;1972; Oksala, 1986.)

The essence of the hidden craft was discussed in Finland between László Mohol -Nagy (1895–1946) (Byars, 2004) and Alvar Aalto when Lazlo presented the “new” Bauhaus-ideology in which the play had its key role in art education. After the lesson Aalto took out from bookshelves the book of

Yrjö Hirn (see above) discussing the similarity of childrens play with art and his surprise tactics started a fruitful dialogue.

Tacit knowledge came back to design discussion due to the influence of M. Polanyi (1966) (as mentioned before). In 1986 a Swedish professor Olle Wåhlström promoted the importance of hand-drafting and tacit knowledge behind it (1986/1988) as related to the coming ICT and AI time. (Cf. Linn, 1986/1988) In fact, Jaakko Ylinen had brought to the table similar question (1968) in his writing “Architectural space and form” where he cited an article in which architectural drawing was connected to bodily memory (cf. Pallasmaa, 2002).

Hidden and visible, emotional and rational should be of course in balance. The growth of design knowledge after WWII was noticed in Finland in building knowledge institutes and SAFA. This also led to special programs like “Knowledge-Based Design” (Gero & Oksala, 1989). We may gather around this idea the progress in informational, conceptual and cognitive design study (Oksala, 1981; Pallasmaa, 1981; Mänty, 1984; Stenros, 1992; Lehtonen, 1994; Eskola, 2005; Launis, 2006; Nyman, 2008). The amount of scientific design studies is today very extensive and can not be discussed here in detail. Architectural education was started also in Oulu and Tampere. Interest toward science grew inside design institutes. Design is also thought in many Universities of Applied Sciences, like HAMK, around the country. (Helamaa, 2000; Oksala, 2017.)

Ambient Craft in Finland, Success in Applied Art and Industry

Most important designers evidently have their own design theories as folk theories of craft or more manifest ones. Sometimes these arouse in surface in discussions. Reima Pietilä (1923–1993), famous for his designs like Dipoli at Otaniemi Campus with Raili Paatelainen (1926–2021), told to the Finnish author of this article in 1986, that all buildings that they have designed are experiments in relation to theory which is the real work. (Pietilä, 1964, 1972, 1988.)

The rise of Finnish design happened in connection with industrial building (Hankonen, 1994) and industry in general. In many cases art and theory were to be smuggled into project. There were also important firms like Nuutajärvi (1793), Arabia (1873), Iittala(1881), Artek (1935), Marimekko (1951) (Byars, 2004) and so on in which design was under direct care of government. The list of international and national awardwinning organizations of success is large. (Takala- Schreib, 2000, 102-)

One of the key problems of industrial design was to balance individual and collective taste and quality with the efficiency offered by industry. Alvar Aalto again developed his own philosophy of how to balance individual and collective forces and how to make this with the aid of “Elastic Standardization.” (Aalto, 1972/Oksala, 1986.) The social importance of this visionary mission was underlined by the fact that even the Prime Minister (later President) Risto Ryti was one of the promoting persons. Later in the 60s the trends of standardization and anonymous minimal design became in front due to the influence of Ulm-school and international systems design. One important figure promoting team-work and anonymity was Kaj Frank. The ethos of the time became in front in his words (1978)

“A tool designed for use should not seem ready and finished. Its non-completeness is the message to the user, an impulse to thinking and action.”

The idea of Finnish life style (Wickberg, 1974) and that of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Island have been integrated under the names Scandinavian democracy and design. (Cf. Blomstedt, 1951; Pevsner & Honour, 1971.) How such concepts are born is often difficult to express, but acts tell better story. Eero Saarinen has acted as one of the most important promoters of Scandinavian design already in the middle of the20th century. He designed only two buildings in Finland and much more in the USA, but it is not very well known that he acted in the jury of Sidney Opera Hall and Toronto City Hall. There, Jörn Uzon from Denmark and Viljo Revel and the team (Castren, Lundsten, Valjus) got first prizes. Today the modernistic term Scandinavian design lives in the notion of “Nordic Noir” as expression of Film but also of Design. White functionalism of the Stockholm Exhibition (Linn, 1998) has its vital and curvy after-variations in black.

The most vital style in Finland is still the late-modern of Helsinki, but postmodern regionalism has left its signs around Finland. The flag-bearer was the School of Oulu (“Oulun koulu”). This direction let all colors (of the rainbow or Auroa Borealis) flourish on the borders of smooth anarchy (Sassi, 1986; Helamaa, 2000). The highly artistic movement has its advantages on emancipation, but problems due to the lack of prior skills in intended handwork. Reima Pietilä (Member of Finnish Academy) and professor in Oulu also took distance to his own pupils around the movement. The school of architecture in Tampere had a strong science and discourse profile in the beginning. Helmer Stenros (1929–) and his team unified architectural theory and environmental psychology (Stenros, 1984, 1987). DATUTOP series became one of the leading discourse forums in environmental design in the country. Tampere also soon challenged other schools in design competition market (Helamaa, 2000, 118).

Postmodern inspirations became important also in small scale on the side of interior and furniture design. Some names from the younger generation may be mentioned here like Eero Aarnio (1932–), Yrjö Kukkapuro (1933–), Simo Heikkilä (1943–) and Stefan Lindfors (1962–) in furniture and Oiva Toikka (1931–2019) in glass design. (Byars, 2004.) Postmodern philosophy started an unforeseen, active and critical discourse in design schools. Key themes included national vs. global, Arts and Crafts vs. industry, ecology vs. environmental crisis. (Ahola, 1980; Lapintie, 1993; Periäinen, 1998; Takala-Schreib, 2000)

The cavalcade of profane motive-richness of environment is propagated in participative design. The consumer can decide not only at the level of furniture and small things but also in apartment markets what is to be done. In extreme, we can use the term Design-It-Yourself (De.I.Y). When this is connected to Do-It-Yourself (D.I.Y), we face again the problem of craft quality. All selfactivity is in principle good and honest, but the problem concerns the duty to protect citizens from short cut decisions. The most difficult problem is visible in urban planning, where the effect of decisions culminates only after decades and more. Then the layparticipant is typically a politician “Pro Populi”.

It is hard to evaluate the success of recent urban design in the key places of Finland like Helsinki (Radford & Oksala, 2018) at once. It is, however, easy to say that Old Center of Helsinki and the Un-built Center of the 50s are completely on other level than all that funny stuff that has been made around the year 2000 finally on the site. The key buildings are interesting products of highly esteemed architectural competitions, but where is the higher vision. The town plan is probably more an office work than an ingenious “Master Plan”? Urban design in this crucial point had the opportunity to collect ideas born by urban competitions trough an era of 100 years. The most essential ideas realized fortunately have strong connotations to the genial notes presented by P. E. Blomstedt (1900–1935), like the trough going green sector with central piazza before the Parliament (Blomstedt, 1937/ 1951, 65–, 112).

The amount of remarkable Finnish architects in the 20th century is too large to be commented here (see Wickberg, 1959; Helamaa, 2000; Cerver, 2005, 78, 370, 424, 478, 524, 590, 742, 888). Some illustrative examples can, however, be given. Cerver mentions in his Atlas of Modern Architecture some works of architects like Esa Piironen (1943–), Juha Leiviskä (1936–) and Arto Sipinen (1936–2017) and also works of offices Hyvämäki – Karhunen –Parkkinen, Gullichsen – Kairamo – Vormala and Heikkinen –Komonen. From these eleven names three, that is Christian Gullichsen (1932–2021), Risto Parkkinen (1938–) and Arto Sipinen started their carriers in the office of Aalto. Architects and designers often discuss about new promising actors. There it is best to advice to follow competition success. The organizing institutions of competitions or exhibitions like SAFA

and Ornamo have guaranteed a certain quality of the most important projects. We have referred to the success on this front trough the article, but keeping track of development is here left to activists. (See Helamaa, 2000; Takala-Schreib, 2000; Radford & Oksala, 2018.)

One problem in design is the role of teamwork. It has its glamour as a word since Bauhaus (Giedion, 1954; Frank, 1978). All this has something to do with national life and work styles. Co-operation of various specialists means progress in principle but not always in practice. Today the amount of negotiations and bureaucracy is so over-flowing that design is by obligation left to ambient and even questionable level. Short sighted economic cost-interests are conflicting with quality, although in promotion speeches design is mentioned under friendly connotation for advertisement reason. The situation is comparable to that of commercial industrialism (criticized by Louis Sullivan himself).

Finnish industry and technology is focused for example on forest and metal industry, ship building and telecommunication. Of course, many other areas like building industry have their place in the picture. For example, car industry has been limited in comparison to ship industry, but exceptions can be found, like cargo-cars, trams or military vehicles and licensed car fabrication. This all means that remarkable design innovations can be found first in the areas mentioned. Design of wood products (furniture, sauna (Radford & Oksala, 1986; Särkikoski, 2012, 218)) has still special value. In addition, household tools in steel (Fiskars), electrical homedevices, cruisers and their interiors and mobile phones were long time notable examples of ambient design activities. In this setting we should mention the (ICT) design of paper factories or forest machines. In the daily life, mode and cloth design are of high ambition especially in atelier or studio level, where the craft assimilates today with high-tech ( e.g. HUT) (Takala-Schreib, 2000).

One reaction telling about the challenges above is the unification of economic, technical and industrial-art Universities of Helsinki under the Umbrella notion of Aalto University. This reflects in a nutshell the idea of our own project as unification of commercial craft, technology and art as design. It is hard to give an account on design institutes due to the continuous organizational changes. Association of Art-industry (founded 1875) presented “ambient design”, as we call it, but in 1911 “Ornamo” was founded to defend the role of Arts and Crafts in a more manifest sense. Today the trend is unification as can be seen in the collaboration between the museums of architecture and design. The number of design museums and schools in the whole country is remarkable and cannot be discussed here (Turku, Tampere, Oulu, Hämeenlinna and Jyväskylä as well etc).

Craft and Design Manifestos in Finland

The alienation of design and technology from human life has as one index the decadence of handwork in large areas. In fact, to manifest means to show ideas in concrete fabrication of artifact. 1. Skill is manifest in products themselves. 2. This all needs some promotion (Wright, 1941) and oral or textual manifestos. Important design manifestos in written form can be found during the whole 20th century. (Conrads, 1966; Bonsdorff, von, 1988.) Due to historical reasons, most of them are issued in western countries, but some recall the connections to the wisdom of the East as well. Although Finnish design praxis is nearly over-presented in encyclopedic publications (Byars, 2004), Finnish manifestos are not well-known.

The first important manifesto around Finnish Craft movements after 1900 was “The Fight Text” (1904) published by Gustaf Strengell (1878–1937) and Sigurd Frosterus (1876–1956). In the small manifesto the National style of Helsinki Railway competition entry (First Prize, 1904) of Saarinen was shown as ridiculous. (Högström, 2004, 10–12) Instead, writers promoted Art Nouveau in Brussels or Vienna spirit. Frosterus was Doctor of Philosophy specialized in color theory. He also continued his carrier as famous architect throughout the years. Strengell in contrast become famous via his writings. He discussed artworks on the level of city, building and home (1922, 1923 a, b).

The Fight Text (above) is an excellent example, how a manifest can indluence real desing. Eliel Saarinen was awaked and noticed the above mentioded critique by colleagues Strengell and Frosterus. He invented his own style, soon acknowledged in the USA (II Prize in Herald Tribune competition etc.). Saarinen had not time to write in his busy yars. Decades later Eliel Saarinen was to write the most systematic books of art theory, as a person of Finnish origin. They include The City (1943) promoting among others the idea of healthy environment. The notion is still valid in the time of sustainable development or even Corona virus. He also wrote one of the most advanced books on design, The Search for Form (1948). These writings sum up his lifelong experience since 1900. Saarinen mentions as the most important source for his thoughts the wellknown book by O. Spengler (1918) called The Decline of the West [as mentioned before]. In fact, Spengler visited Finland in 1924 giving two speeches in Helsinki and one in Turku (Spengler 1918/2002, introduction). In the big picture we may say that planning or design theory and the destiny of the World go hand in hand . Alvar Aalto proposed (in discussion 1963) that: “Architecture manifests human creative potentials (power) in culture.” In this sense, it supports surviving on all continents.

In general level, manifestos like City Beautiful and Garden City ideals created by William Morris (1834–1896) (Byars, 2004) or Ebenezer Howard were internalized in Finland, as is evident in the case of Eliel Saarinen or Lars Sonck et al.. (Nikula, 1981, 17, 127; Mikkola, 1984). One pupil of Saarinen, Otto-Iivari Meurman (1890–1994), working in the Finnish office (1914–15), continued on this line. Meurman was the first professor in urban planning (HUT) in Scandinavia and worked for the urban plan of Tapiola. (See 1947.) This large project got highly positive attention throughout the world, in the 50s and even in the 60s. Most remarkable part was the Centre around artificial water theme designed by Aarne Ervi (1910–1977). (Lahti, 2006, 124–) Other important architects behind the plan were A. Blomstedt (1906–1979), V. Revell (1910–1964), H. & K. Sirén (1918–013, 1920–2001), and somewhat later A. Ruusuvuori (1915–1992). (Cf. Pevsner & Honour, 1971)

Today the identity of the Forest City Tapiola is unfortunately mainly spoiled due to commercial pressure. Also, ideologies like Compact City or Communication City were aroused against the Garden/ Forest movement in the early 70s. The design of suburbs turned in the late 60s from free form to gridicon one (Eaton, 2003), but what was unfortunate, mostly toward gray monotonousness (Hilbersheimer, 1963). Efficiency and quantity became in front in solving problems of housing during the migration boom from country to town (Hankonen, 1994). The countermovement was rapid to come, and color finally returned into new urban milieu around the 90s (e.g. Huopalahti), but the opening of the Pandora’s box had already led to commercial Fun, as well.

Pikku Huopalahti (1986–2000) is considered today the most important concentration of postmodern Mumin-houses (see Tove Jansson 1914–2001 and Tuulikki Pietilä 1917–2009) approach in Finland. The city plan was designed by Matti Visanti (1945– ) in Helsinki City Planning Office. In this project the ideas of G. Strengell (1922) concerning “Town as artwork” were rehabilitated. The first part of the residential area and main street “Korppaanmäentie” give skeleton to the plot of the daily drama. The city grows from a single small beach stone, via old vernacular terminal building and beach piaza up. Piaza and the main street are separated with a gate consisting of Thick (right) and Narrow (left) towers. At the end of the street interval, we come to traffic junction marked with Street-end tower. “The Main Street is almost All Right”. Then the passenger may continue up to a “mountain like” Terrace-Tower. (This poetic expression is from the official text in the city plan). From the strategic four tower buildings the Narrow one and Biophilic Terrace-Tower (competition entry) are works of Reijo Jallinoja (1941–). The Thick and Street-end towers are designed by Ilkka Niukkanen (1948–) and Tarkko Oksala (1946–). (See Laapotti et al, 1976; Niukkanen & Oksala, 1986.) The free traffic-net and built-up boost of geography connect Pikku Huopalahti to Tapiola tradition, but compactness, roof landscape, and tile-colors tell about a new spirit. Interruption of the

modernistic tradition was radical, and we may even look to the direction of Wivi Lönn and the sources of her inspirations from Scotland and from

Mackintosh ( McKean & Baxter, 2003, 15, 18, 22) without forgetting the “Play with the Mumins” .

The basic ideas behind Tapiola were “Genius Loci” and Green. Forest as a focus has today been extended more clearly towards the healthy climate. The concept of regionalism has been enlarged toward international cooperation, manifested in research projects like “Cities designed for winter” (Mänty & Pressman (eds.), 1988). Problems concern more and more the whole human habitat (Bonsdorff, 1998). This all leads toward multiple discussions concerning our environment as un-built or as the real global village.

In certain sense, a lot of the interest in urban and rural design has turned into the direction of telecommunications and Smart cities (cf. Aalto, 1932/1972, 34), also in Finland after the Nokia phenomenon. Telecommunications is emancipative in general. Design is today also often ICT, User interface and AI service design. Telematic maps help in environmental orientation of pedestrians, mini-vehicles or cars. Transportation waits also its drone-applications and driver-less vehicles of all kinds. It is also possible to avoid other people by using Corona virus phone applications. Distances and properties or hierarchies of classical urbanism have loosed their significance, but crises may open new synthetic traffic innovations in advance (Majurinen & Oksala, 2009).

The longterm crisis tangential to design after recent pandemic is still the ecological one. It concerns erosion and pollution, water conditions and climate change. W. L. Thomas discussed basics of this problem in global level already in 1956. Erwin László (1932–) (Seppänen, 1998), one of the founding members of the Club of Rome, visited the Athens of Finland in the early 60s. Other summer festival speakers of “Jyväskylän kesä” in these years were Richard Neutra (1892–1970), Viktor Papanek (1925–1999), Sigfried

Giedion (1888–1968) and Richard Buckminster Fuller (1985–1983) (Byars, 2004). Alvar Aalto as a Finn had also his famous socio-ecological speech – ending to the words SOC, “Save our Cities”. He was renowned with Lewis Mumford (1895–1990) as a pioneer of regionalism. In fact, Erik Ahlman had translated the Culture of Cities written by Mumford already in 1946 into Finnish to prepare rebuilding of the country.

Design emerged as a target of public interest in Jyväskylä summer-festivals bringing together performing and descriptive arts. Tapio Periäinen (1929–) was mainly responsible for the “Design Division”. Majority of the important national and international names mentioned above openly manifested their conceptions of good design. The reputation on these free ideological markets brought to Periäinen leading role in Finnish design organizations, like Finnish Design Forum (1975–94). Anne Stenros

continued his work through the end of the Millenium. Design promotion happened in connection with exhibitions like “Finland Designs” (1980–1998) (Takala-Schreib, 2000, 79) besides the tradition of “Finland Builds”.

The secret pioneer of Finnish Green movement was Pauli Ernesti Blomstedt (1900–1935) (1951). He died very early and his ongoing projects were realized under the command of his wife Märta Blomstedt (1899–1982) who continued pioneering functionalism. Pauli had an important role in promoting the Helsinki Central Park running the length of Helsinki from the still rural northern border region into the heart of the City. He created the programs of architectural ethics (Bright, see next paragraph) and healthy environmental design (Green, see next paragraph) in harmony with the contribution of Eliel Saarinen. Blomstedt also listed the key definitions of functional design from Plato to Hippolyte Taine (in 9 cases) in the spirit of our own paper.

The work for environmental care has been continued since the early 90s, for example in adopting the manifesto of “Sustainable Development” (Lasker & Oksala, 1993/ 1994) into education program of HUT (Aalto) under the special slogan “Green, Blue and Bright Developments in Environment“. This slogan refers to the conditions of forests + parks, sea + air and human intelligence + AI. (Oksala & Lasker, 1994/1996; Oksala, Farre & Lasker, 1995/1996). Since the decades of these early manifestos our world has completely changed and accepts more and more the green values, but the question still remains, if the challenges are too big. (Periäinen, 1969, 1996.) The Corona crises has shown, anyhow, what kind of advances in the climate front can be achieved via the Slow or Smart Cities moment. (Shon et al., 2015) The course of development has to be moderated. The role of traditional life or High-ITC is in our own hands.

Epilogue: A Meta-manifest For the Case of Finland

We have discussed as case the story of Finnish design since 1900, starting it from the Finnish Pavilion in Paris World Fair and continuing up to the middle of the 20th century and somewhat more up to 2000. To limit these thoughts, we used three viewpoint – craft as hidden, ambient and manifest. Phenomena do not appear from nothing, and it is fair to open the curtain of 1900. The grey eminence (éminence grise) behind Pavilion-project was the famous painter Albert Edelfelt (1854–1905), who wanted to give revolutionary space for younger but be silent also for diplomatic reasons. According to P. E. Blomstedt (1930) Edelfelt surprisingly wrote a manifesto outside of his own profession, namely in architecture (1898). This strong manifesto was against old eclecticism, and it was promoting (new) Art Nouveau. Edelfelt was angry about the alienation of architecture from other arts and crafts and said:

“Building art is that art, which should care and lead all others and for which it is necessary to go in front, if we wish the whole (new) movement to have future. --- The new style, which is under birth, wants simplification and deepness. It wants that the form should emerge out of the intimate thought of the craftwork itself” (Edelfelt, 1898).

These ideas are in balance with thoughts of Aristotle (1984) and Socrates (Rolland, 1921, 292) but not copies at all. Power of these words (logos) is easy to understand. They contain the seeds of Finnish craft thinking. Blomstedt understood that 32 years later, but so did Alvar Aalto in 1958, 60 years after the words of Edelfelt. In his 60th birthday he wrote into architectural magazine (ark) a self-interview having the same ethos against eclecticism of that day (Aalto, 1972, 104–105; Oksala, 1986 329–). The point was against commercial cavalcade-milieus which alienate from the (small) human (being). Aalto writes:

“And building art – the real one – can be found only there where this small human is in the focus, his tragedy and comedy –both.”

What is needed is a deeper education of love and compassion between humans and love reaching also our home district in small and large. Hämeenlinna, the hometown of HAMK, was also the place of childhood for Armas Lindgren, one of the designers of Finnish Pavilion in 1900. Later he dedicated his life to craft education. The secret (origin and seed) behind the professional education in arts and crafts given by Armas Lindgren for the next generation was his sensibility towards a very small medieval cathedral from his childhood called Hattula Church. The description of this craft work in his lectures was so impressive year after year that Aalto family, his pupils, wanted to show the mysterious target to László Moholy-Nagy. Spontaneous delight soon fulfilled the space and sustained. Later the daughter of László and Sibyl got as her given name Hattula – in total Hattula Moholy-Nagy.

Bibliography

Classical authors (until the 19th century)

Alberti (1485/1986). De re aedificatoria, trans from Latin by Leoni in 1755 as The Ten Books of Architecture. Dover Publication.

Al-Farabi ( c. 870-950/1998). Ihsa’ al-’ulum. Classification of Knowledge in Islam: A Study in Islamic Philosophies of Science. Partial trans. into English by O. Bakar in Islamic Texts Society. Complete trans. into Turkish by A. Ates, Milli Egitim Basimevi.

Aristotle (1987/2008). Poetics, with the Tractatus Coislinianus, reconstruction of Poetics II, and the fragments of the On Poets (trans. into English by R. Janko). Hackett Publishing Company.

Aristotle (1989). Nichomean Ethics (trans. into English by H. Rackham). Loeb Classical Library.

Aristotle (2018). Metaphysics (trans. into English by W. D. Ross). Digireads.com Publisher.

Baumgarten, A.G. (1750/1988). Esthétique (trans. into French by Jean Yves Pranchère). Paris: L'Herve. (Original Aesthetica.)

Cousin, V. (1818/1858). Du vrai, du beau et du bien. Paris: Eds. Didier.

D’Alembert, J. (1759/2002). Discours préliminaire de l’Encyclopédie. Ed. with commentaries by M. Malherbe. Paris: Vrin.

Descartes. R. (1637/1970). Discours de la méthode (Int. and notes by Et. Gilson). Paris: Vrin.

Diderot, (2015). Articles de l’Encylopedie. Eds. M. Méricam-Bourdet et C. VolpilhacAuger. Folio Classique.

Diderot, D. (2007). Ecrits sur le Arts et les artistes, Suivi de Diderot dans l’espace des peintres. Ed. J. Seznec. Paris: Hermann.

Galen (1930). Exhortation to Study the Arts ( trans. by Joseph Walsh M.D). Medical Life, 37, 507–529.

Herodotus (2018). Historía, The History of Herodotus (trans. into English by George Rawlinson). Scribe Publishing.

Kant, I. (1790/1987). The Critique of Judgment. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.

Morris, W. (2020). Complete Works. The William Morris Internet Archive. Works. https://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/index.htm

Plato (1914). Protagoras (trans. into English by H. N. Fowler and an introduction by W. R. M. Lamb). Loeb Classical Library.

Plato (2007). Symposium – Le Banquet (trans. into French by L. Brisson). Paris: Flammarion.

Vasari (1550/2006). Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects (trans into English by P. Jacks). Modern Library Classics.

Vico, G. (1993). De l’antique sagesse de l’Italie (trans. into French by Jules Michelet, Int. and notes by Bruno Pinchard). Paris: Garnier-Flammarion.

Wilde, O. (1948/1969). The Soul of Man under Socialism. Complete Works. Intro. with V. Holland. Collins, 1079–1104.

Wilde, O. (1913). Essays and lectures. Ed. by R. Ross. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. (“The English Renaissance of Art”, p. 109 sq. and “ House Decoration”, p. 157 sq.).

Zuccari, F. (1607). Idea de’picttori, sculptori ed architetti (there exist no English or French translation of this book, for some extraits see Didi-Huberman, 1990, chap. 2, and Panofsky, 1983, chap. 4).

Modern authors (the 20th and the 21st centuries)

Brisson, L. (1982/1994). Platon: les mots et les mythes. Editions la Découverte.

Collingwood, R. G. (1938/1982) The Principles of Art (15th edition). London: Oxford University Press.

Dačić, A. (2016). Arts and Crafts Movement – When Women United in Creativity in Widewalls. Retrieved December, 30, 2021, from https://www.widewalls.ch/ arts-and-crafts-movement-women-artists/

de Kerros, A. (2016). L’imposture de l’art contemporain. Eyrolles

Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and Nature (first ed. 1929). Dover publications.

Didi-Huberman, G. (1990). Devant l’image. Ed. de Minuit, chap. 2.

Dyson, F. (1998). Science as a Craft Industry. Science, 280 (5366), 1014–1015.

Finch, J. K. (1960). The Story of Engineering. Anchor Books.

Forman, P. (2007). The primacy of science in modernity, of technology in postmodernity, and of ideology in the history of technology. History and Technology, 23(1), 1–152.

Gasparski, W. W. & Orel, T. (Eds.) (2014). Designology: Studies On Planning For Action. New Brunswich, USA: Transactions Publishers.

Giedion, S. (2014). Mechanization Takes Command: A contribution to anonymous history (first ed. 1948). University of Minnesota Press.

Guthrie, W. K. C. (1971). A History of Greek Philosophy: Volume 3, The Fifth Century Enlightenment, Part 1, The Sophists (p. 265). Cambridge University Press.

Hintikka, J. (1974). Knowledge and The Known: Historical Perspectives in Epistemology (chap. 2 on Plato and Knowledge). Dortrecht/Boston: D. Reidel Publishing.

Kristeller, P. O. (1951). The Modern System of The Arts: a study in the history of aesthetics (part 1). Journal of the History of Ideas, 12(4), 496–527.

Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and Utopia. Harcourt, Brace.

Maritain, J. (1965). Art et Scholastique. Descle de Brouwer.

McMahon, J. A. (2009). Beauty as harmony of the soul: the aesthetic of the Stoics”. Conference Paper. Proceedings of the Eighth Biennial International Conference of Greek Studies, Flinders University.

Orel, T. (1985). Le principe de Serendipity ou l’imaginaire appliquée. Cahiers de l’imaginaire, 69–77.

Orel, T. (1993). Une Philosophie des techniques pour la formation des ingénieurs (pp.121–150). In Y. Deforge (Ed.), De l’éducation technologique à la culture technique. ESF éditeur.

Orel, T. (2016a). Écrits sur le design. Paris: Éditions L’Harmattan.

Orel, T. ( 2016b). A Design “Fiction” (part one): The Social and The Market Design Policies in Utopia and The New Atlantis. The Radical Designist, Utopia, December 2016. http://unidcom.iade.pt/radicaldesignist/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Utopia-Tufan-Orel.pdf

Panofsky, E. (1983). Idea (trans. into French by Henri Joly). Gallimard.

Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge, Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy (corrected ed. 1962). University of Chicago Press.

Polanyi, M. (1962/1969). Tacit Knowledge: Its bearing on Some Problems of Philosophy. In M. Grene (Ed.), Knowing and Being. University of Chicago Press.

Rancière, J. (2011). Aisthesis: Scenes du regime esthétique de l’art. Paris: Galilée.

Ropohl, G. (1984). La signification des concepts de “technique” et “technologie” dans la langue allemande (trans. into French by J.P. Chrétien-Goniet & Ch. Lazzeri). Cahiers Science, Technologie, Société. Éditions du CNRS, Paris.

Searle, J. (1992). The Redescovery of The Mind. MIT Press.

Sennett, R. (2008). The Craftsman. Yale University Press.

Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (third edition). MIT Press.

Steffen, A. (2012). Carbon Zero: Imagining Cities That Can Save the Planet. Alex Steffen.

Tatarkiewicz, W. (1972). The Great Theory of Beauty and Its Decline. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 31(2), 165–180.

Case Finland

Aalto, A. (1972). Luonnoksia (ed. G. Schildt). Otava.

Ahola, J. (1980). Teollinen muotoilu (Industrial design). Espoo: Otakustantamo.

Aristotle (1984). Nikomakhoksen etiikka (trans. into Finnish by S. Knuuttila). Gaudeamus.

Bachelard, G. (1957/2003). Tilan poetiikka (trans. into Finnish by Tarja Roinila). (The Poetics of Space). Nemo.

Blomstedt, P. E. (1930). Edelfelt rakennustaideteoreetikkona (Edelfelt as building-art-theoretician). Helsinki: Archive. Reprinted in Blomstedt, 1951, pp. 171–176.

Blomstedt, P. E. (1931). Akseli Gallen-Kallela. Helsinki. Reprinted in Blomstedt, 1951, pp. 177–179.

Blomstedt, P. E. (1951). P. E. Blomstedt, arkkitehti. Helsinki: Suomen arkkitehtiliitto.

Blomstedt, Y. & Sucksdorff, V. (1900–1901). Karjalaisia rakennuksia ja koristemuotoja I ja II (Carelian buildings and decoration I and II). Helsinki.

Bonsdorff, P. von (1988). Manifesti sanoo, arkkitehtuuri on (Manifest says, architecture exists). Synteesi, 7(3), 141–149.

Bonsdorff, P. von (1998). The Human Habitat. Gummerus.

Byars M. (2004). The Design Encyclopedia. MOMA.

Cerver, F. A. (2005). Arkkitehtuuriatlas (The Atlas of Modern Architecture). Könemann.

Christ-Janer, A. (1951). Eliel Saarinen. Otava.

Conrads, U. (1966). Programme und Manifeste zur Architektur des 20er Jahrhunderts. Berlin: Ullstein.

Eaton, R. (2003). Ideal Cities. Thames and Hudson.

Edelfelt, A. (1898). Den decorative konstens förfall och pånyttfödelse (The decline of decorative art and its resurrection). Helsingfors: Ateneum.

Eskola, T. (2005). Arkkitehtuuri käsitteenä (Architecture as Concept) [doctoral dissertation]. Espoo: Teknillinen korkeakoulu.

Franck, K. (1978). Muotoilijan tunnustuksia (Confessiones of a Designer). Ornamo Journal.

Gero, J. S. & Oksala, T. (1989). Knowledge-Based Systems in Architecture. Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica Ci92. Helsinki.

Giedion, S. (1952). Space, Time and Architecture. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.

Giedion, S. (1954). Walter Gropius. Mensch und Werk. Hatje.

Hankonen, J. (1994). Lähiöt ja tehokkuuden yhteiskunta [doctoral dissertation, Tampereen teknillinen korkeakoulu]. Espoo/Helsinki: Otatieto/Gaudeamus.

Heidegger, M. (1950/ 1995). Taideteoksen alkuperä (trans. into Finnish by H. Sivenius). Taide. (Original Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes, 1950.)

Helamaa, E. (2000). Arkkitehtikoulutus Suomessa 175 vuotta. Rakennustieto Oy.

Hilbersheimer, L. (1963). Einfaltung einer Planungsidee. Berlin: Ullstein.

Högström, H. (2004). Helsingin rautatieasema - Helsinki Railway Station. Helsinki: VR-Group Ltd.

Kinnunen, U. (Ed.) (2005). Aino Aalto. Alvar Aalto Museum.

Korvenmaa. P. (1997). Lars Sonck. Kansallisbiografia-verkkojulkaisu. Studia Biographica 4. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. http://urn.fi/ urn:nbn:fi:sks-kbg-003641

Korvenmaa, P. (2009/ 2014). Finnish Design: A Concise History. Helsinki University of Art and Design.

Kukkonen, H. (1984). A design language for a self-planning system [doctoral dissertation] (Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica Ci82). Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology.

Laapotti, J., Niukkanen, I. & Oksala, T. (1976). Asumisratkaisun laadun muodostuminen (The formation of quality in housing soluton). Espoo: Teknillinen korkeakoulu.

Lahti, J. (2006). Arkkitehti Aarne Ervin moderni. Taidehistoriallisia tutkimuksia, 34.

Lahti, L. (2004). Alvar Aalto. Taschen.

Lapintie, K. (1993). The So-called Good Environment (DATUTOP 17, Tampere University of Tecnology). Tampere.

Lasker, G. E. & Oksala, T. (Eds.) (1993/1994). Design: Ecology, Aesthetics, Ethics (Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica Ci99). Helsinki.

Launis, T. (2006). Tila, aika ja virtuaalisuus (Space, time and virtuality) [Doctoral dissertation, Tampereen teknillinen yliopisto] (TUT, 611). Tampere.

Lehtonen, H. (1994). Perspektiivejä arkkitehtisuunnitelmien esityskäytäntöihin (Perspectives to the presentation usages of architectural plans) (YTK A 22). Espoo: Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun täydennyskoulutuskeskus.

Linn, B., (1986/ 1988). Knowledge Problems in Architecture. In T. Oksala (Ed.), Knowledge-Based Design in Architecture (TIPS-86, A-HUT) (pp. 1–5). Espoo.

Linn, B. (1998). Arkitekturen som kunskap (Architecture as knowledge). Stockholm: Byggforskningrådet.

Maarttola, I. (1998). Participant – Contingent Design Decisions. A Theory of Novice Decisions in Home Acquisition [doctoral dissertation, Helsinki University of Technology] (Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica Ci112). Espoo.

Majurinen, J., Oksala, T. (2009). Junaliikenteen informaatiokeskuksen toimintatapa -INTO-hanke (The rail traffic information centre – the INTO project). Ratahallintokeskus.

McKean, J. & Baxter, C. (2003). Charles Rennie Mackintosh, Architect, Artist, Icon. Lomond Books.

Meurman, O.-I. (1947). Asemakaavaoppi. Otava.

Mikkola, K. (1984). Eliel Saarinen aikansa kaupunkinäkemysten tulkkina – Suomen aika. (Eliel Saarinen interpreting urban visions of his time). Espoo: Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun täydennykskoulutuskeskus.

Mumford, L. (1946). Kaupunkikulttuuri (The Culture of Cities). WSOY.

Mänty, J. (1984). The Principles of Architecture [doctoral dissertation, Tampere University of Technology] (DATUTOP 7). Tampere.

Mänty, J. & Pressman, N. (1988). Cities Designed for Winter. Building Book Ltd.

Niiniluoto, I. (1990a). Maailma, minä ja kulttuuri. Otava.

Niiniluoto, I. (1990b). Kauneus ja informaatio. In M. Lammenranta & V. Rantala (Eds.) Kauneus (pp. 200–222). Suomen Filosofinen yhdistys

Nikula, R. (1981). Yhtenäinen kaupunkikuva 1900–1930 (The Uniform City Image 1900–1930) [doctoral dissertation, Helsingin yliopisto] (Societas Scientiarium Fennica, SSF-H 127). Helsinki.

Niukkanen, I. & Oksala, T. (1986). Rakennuksen laatukriteerit (The Quality Criteria in Building). Helsinki: Rakennushallitus.

Nyman, K (2008). Arkkitehtuurin kadotettu kieli (The Loosed Language of Architecture). Multikustannus.

Oksala, P. (1976). Ihminen, kulttuuri, taide. Gummerus.

Oksala, T. (1976). Asuinympäristön visuaalinen laatu (The Visual Quality of Housing Environment). In J. Laapotti, I. Niukkanen & T. Oksala, Asumisratkaisun laadun muodostuminen (41, A-HUT) (pp. 118–148). Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology.

Oksala, T. (1981). Logical Aspects of Architectural Experience and Planning [doctoral dissertation, Helsinki University of Technology]. Espoo.

Oksala, T. (2017). Current Graduate & Post-Graduate Architecture Programs in Finland, Their Origins and Diversity. In G. Andonian & G. E. Lasker (Eds.), Architecture, Urbanity and Social Sustainability. Vol IX, IIAS, 52–57.

Oksala, T. & Lasker, G. E. (Eds.) (1996). Design: Evolution, Gognition (Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica Ci 105). Espoo.

Oksala, T. K. (1986). Homeroksesta Alvar Aaltoon. Weilin & Göös.

Pallasmaa, J. (1981) Arkkitehtuurin kaksi kieltä, Biokulttuurisen arkkitehtuurinäkemyksen lähtökohtia (The Two Languages of Architecture, Origins of Biocultura View in Architecture). Abacus 2.

Pallasmaa, J. (2002). Ihon silmät (The Eys of Skinn), Synteesi, 20(4), 4–19.

Pallasmaa, J. (2003). Tilan poetiikka ja arkkitehtuurin teoria (The Poetics of Space and the Theory of Architecture). In Bachelard, 2003, pp. 485–493.

Paulsson, G. (1919/ 1986). Vackrare vardagsvara (More Beautiful Everyday Things)- Göteborg/ Stockholm.

Periäinen, T. (1969). Nature, man, architecture. Helsinki: AASF.

Periäinen, T. (1996). Metropoleista muotoiluun (From Metropoles to Design). Helsinki: Rakennuskirja Oy.

Pevsner, N. & Honour, J. (1971). Lexikon der Weltachitektur. Darmstadt.

Pietilä, R. (1964). Peitekuvioita ja sarjoja (Covering Figures and Series). Teekkari B3, 17–18.

Pietilä, R. (1973). Arkkitehtuuri – estetiikka – yhteiskunta – ideologia (Architecture – Aesthetics – Society – Ideology). Ark 1, Arkkitehti No 1, 1973.

Pietilä, R. (1988). Reima Pietilä on Climate and Place. In J. Mänty & N. Pressman, Cities Designed for Winter (pp. 13–18). Building Book, Ltd.

Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Chicago.

Radford, A. (1991). Editorial: Developments in Computer-Aided Design. Building and Environment, 21(1), 1–2.

Radford, A. & Oksala, T. (1996). Creative Memories and the Finnish Sauna (Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica Ci 106). Helsinki.

Radford, A. & Oksala, T. (2018). Responsive Cohesion in the art and artfulness of Urban Design: some case studied in Helsinki. Journal of Urban Design, 23(2).

Rolland, R. (1921). Michelangelo. WSOY.

Routila, L.-O. (1986). Miten teen tiedettä taiteesta (How to make science from art). Keuruu: Clarion.

Saarinen, E. (1943). The City. MIT.

Saarinen, E. (1948). The Search for Form. Heineman.

Sassi, M. (1986). Modernismi murtuu (The Shattered Modernism). Helsinki: Rakennuskirja Oy.

Schildt, G. (1985). Nykyaika, Alvar Aallon tutustuminen funktionalismiin (trans. in Finnish by R. Mattila). Otava.

Scruton, R. (1980). The Aesthetics of Architecture. Princeton.

Sohn, D., Jang, H.- J. & Jung, T. (2015). Go Slow and Curvy, Understanding the Philosophy of Cittaslow (Slowcity) Phenomenon. Springer.

Sepänmaa, Y. (1988). Ympäristön esteettisyys – paljon kysymyksiä, vähän vastauksia (The Aestheticality of Environment). Synteesi 7(3), 4–18.

Spengler, O. (1918). Länsimaiden perikato. Tammi.

Strengell, G. (1922). Staden som konstverk. Holger Schildt.

Strengell, G. (1923). Byggnaden som konstverk. Holger Shildt.

Strengell, G. (1923). Hemmet som konstverk. Holger Schildt.

Strengell, G. & Frosterus, S. (1904). En stridskrift våra motståndare tillägnad (A Fight Writing Owned to Our Resistants). Enterpe.

Stenros, A. (1992). Kesto ja järjestys (Duration and Order) [doctoral dissertation, Teknillinen korkeakoulu]. Espoo.

Stenros, H., Aura, S. (1984). Arkkitehtuurin muoto ja sisältö (The Form and Content of Architecture). Helsinki: Rakennuskirja Oy.

Stenros, H., Aura, S. (1987). Time, motion and architecture. Amer Group, Helsinki.

Särkikoski, T. (2012). Kiukaan kutsu ja löylyn lumo (The Call of Stove and Enchantment of “Löyly”). Gummerus.

Takala-Schreib, V. (2000). Suomi muotoilee, unelmien kuvajaisia diskurssien vallassa (Finland Designs). Helsinki: Taideteollinen korkeakoulu.

Tarasti, E. (Ed.) (1988). Ympäristö, arkkitehtuuri, tietotekniikka. (Environment, architecture, IT). Synteesi 7(3), teemanumero.

Thomas, W. L. (1956). Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth. University of Chicago Press.

Tuovinen, P. (1992) Ympäristökuva ja symboliikka (About the analyzing methods of the environscape and its meanings) (YTK A 20). Espoo: Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun täydennyskoulutuskeskus.

Whitford, F. (1984). Bauhaus. Thames and Hudson.

Wickberg, N. E. (1959). Suomen rakennustaidetta. (Finnish Architecture). Otava.

Wickberg, N. E. (1974). Arkitekturen och Tidsandan. Helsingfors: Söderström & C.O.

Wright, F. Ll. (1941) On Architecture. MOMA.

Wåhlström, O. (1986/ 1988). Sketching and Knowledge in the Design Process. In T. Oksala (Ed.), Knowledge-Based Design in Architecture (TIPS-86, A-HUT) (pp. 1–5). Espoo.

Ylinen, J. (1968). Arkkitehtoninen tila ja muoto (Architectural Space and Form). Espoo: University of Polytechnic.

Ålander, K. (1954). Rakennustaide renessanssista funktionalismiin (Architecture from Renaissance to Funtionalism). WSOY.